Introduction
In late 2021, the International Commission on the Futures of Education released its report ‘Reimagining Our Futures Together’, calling for ‘a new social contract’ for education (International Commission on the Futures of Education, 2021). The report argues that knowledge and education are common goods that reflect humanity’s wide diversity of ways of knowing, living and being; and it calls for the ‘valorization of cultures and epistemologies that are so often marginalized’. Nevertheless, official educational policies still fail to respond to the needs and aspirations of Indigenous Peoples1 in many regions, including the one that is the focus of this study, Latin America. This represents a backlash not only regarding the human rights of these communities, but also for non-Indigenous Peoples whose lives could be enriched by their perspectives and cosmovision. But this knowledge has been invisibilised by the hegemony of a Western-centric perspective that continues to belittle the epistemic alterity of non-European peoples. This issue has long been denounced by intellectuals from the region, particularly from a post-colonial perspective, including by figures such as Anibal Quijano, Walter Mignolo and Enrique Dussel.
The current global scenario calls for a revision of the logic of capitalism, including practices such as irrational and unrestrained consumerism, the depletion of natural resources, extractivism and the drive for profit that overrides any ethical or extra-economic consideration. Indigenous knowledge represents a radical alternative to this dynamic, since it does not consider nature as a source of profit, but as an entity that is alive, entitled to rights and even capable of being legally represented.2 According to this point of view, the purpose of humanity is to develop a spiritual and profound relationship of respect and reciprocity with the environment, based on exchange and care. The existential motives of Indigenous Peoples focus on achieving and sustaining a dignified life in harmony with the community and nature to achieve ‘good living’ (buen vivir). Expressions such as sumak kawsay (‘good living’) or suma qamaña (‘living well’), ñandereko (‘living harmoniously’) and teko kavi (‘good life’) bear witness to this centrality of nature in Indigenous cultures and their aspiration to a balanced utilisation of natural and social resources (Guadarrama González and Martínez Dalmau, 2023).
We argue that education can play a central role in advancing a diversity of cultures and epistemologies and, at the same time, break with uniform, homogenising and colonialist traditions. To do so, why not include Indigenous Peoples’ perspective in the ‘official’ curricula? Isn’t it time for schools to start questioning and reflecting on our relationship with nature, technology, human rights and, ultimately, what it means to be human? For too long, Indigenous Peoples have been forced to assimilate the knowledge of the conquerors. We believe that it is time to shift this trend and to make the exchange a bidirectional interaction in order to achieve genuine intercultural dialogue.
This idea may seem utopian in a context where Indigenous Peoples struggle for their very survival, culture and territory, but it is a necessary shift, not only to guarantee their survival, but that of humanity in general. In recent years, significant progress has been made in legally and discursively recognising the human rights of Indigenous Peoples, including their acknowledgement within the constitutional frameworks of several nations, parallel to the consolidation of democratic processes in countries such as Colombia (1991), Mexico (1992), Paraguay (1992), Chile (1993), Peru (1993), Bolivia (1994), Argentina (1994) and Ecuador (1996 and 1998) (Cárdenas, 1998).3 The ratification of international treaties, such as the UNESCO (2011) Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (adopted by the General Assembly in 2007), have also contributed to giving visibility to their demands and including them in the political agenda. However, the inclusion of the rights of Indigenous Peoples in these ‘institutionalized expressions of power discourse’ (Méndez, 2008) has not corresponded to an improvement in their living conditions. Indigenous Peoples continue to suffer from disproportionally high rates of poverty, health problems, crime and human rights abuses; including violence and brutality, assimilation policies, dispossession of land, marginalisation, forced removal or relocation, denial of land rights, impacts of large-scale development, abuses by military forces and a host of other abuses (Amnesty International, 2024; United Nations, 2010). The United Nations (2010) estimate that Indigenous Peoples’ life expectancy is up to 20 years lower than that of their non-Indigenous counterparts.
This article seeks to contribute to the discussion regarding the educational inclusion and recognition of Indigenous Peoples’ knowledge and the need not only for its acknowledgement, but also for its dissemination among non-Indigenous people. We overview the main features of cultural diversity in Latin America and the Caribbean, outline the contours of education in multicultural contexts and then focus on intercultural bilingual education (IBE), a pedagogical model implemented in several countries in the region. This perspective is analysed within the framework of post-colonialism, highlighting the subordinate place that non-European perspectives continue to occupy in the material and symbolic landscape in the region. Respecting and recognising Indigenous knowledge systems is not only an educational task but also an ethical and political one. This involves disrupting the power asymmetries that perpetuate the segmentation and isolation of marginalised groups. In addition, it provides an opportunity to realise the potential of education to dismantle asymmetrical positions and foster social coexistence based on respect for the legitimacy of otherness.
Cultural diversity in Latin America
Estimates show that around 45 million Indigenous people live in Latin America, grouped in more than 800 ethnic groups, characterised by their extensive demographic, social, territorial and political diversity, ranging from peoples in voluntary isolation to those living in large urban settlements (ECLAC, 2014). According to the World Bank’s 2015 report, Mexico, Peru, Guatemala and Bolivia had the largest Indigenous populations both in absolute and proportional terms, comprising more than 80 per cent of the total (34.4 million). El Salvador, Brazil, Paraguay, Argentina, Uruguay, Costa Rica and Venezuela had the smallest proportions of Indigenous population, with El Salvador and Costa Rica having the smallest Indigenous populations in absolute terms (14,865 and 104,143 people, respectively) (World Bank, 2015).
Cultural diversity encompasses around 150 million Afro-descendants, constituting a third of Latin America’s entire population, who arrived on the continent during the time of the slave trade. Despite the passage of time, their situation remains precarious, with 90 million African Americans living in poverty, representing 40 per cent of the region’s impoverished population. The majority of Afro-descendants in Latin America (80 per cent) reside in Brazil, Colombia and Venezuela (World Bank, 2015). Additionally, multiculturalism is shaped by significant migratory waves from Europe, as well as smaller-scale arrivals of Asian populations such as Japanese, Chinese and Korean contingents throughout the twentieth century. More recent demographic shifts have further contributed to multiculturalism – but also to social tensions – notably the migrations of South and Central Americans to neighbouring countries and the United States. These movements, driven by political persecution and armed conflicts in Central America – particularly in El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua – reflect a flight from violence, poverty and organised crime.
In terms of linguistic diversity, Latin America boasts nearly 400 million Spanish speakers and more than 200 million Portuguese speakers, reflecting the legacies of the former colonial powers. However, the region is also home to over 560 languages, as reported by the World Bank (2015). Among the most widely spoken Indigenous languages in Latin America are Quechua, estimated to have between 6 and 8 million speakers; Mayan, with approximately 6 million speakers residing primarily in southern Mexico, Guatemala and Belize; Guarani, spoken by around 5 million people in Paraguay, where it holds official status alongside Spanish, and also present in regions of Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia; Aymara, with 2.5 million speakers in Peru and Bolivia; and Nahuatl, the mother tongue of 2 million individuals in Central America. Each of these linguistic groups possesses its own distinct characteristics; they do not constitute a homogeneous entity. However, they do share a common experience of subalternity and marginalisation, prompting critical reflection on the possibilities of inclusion for those who are, in fact, the original inhabitants of the region.
In Latin America, the past 500 years have been defined by the geocultural dominance of global capitalist power – a narrative shaped by conquest, colonialism, imperialism and oppression. This ‘Eurocentric monologue’ diminishes other cultures as despicable and insignificant, perpetuating a subtle racism that fails to acknowledge the epistemic alterity of non-European peoples (Dussel, 2007). Despite changes in specific contents, the foundational tenets of this cognitive perspective have persisted throughout both colonial and modern times. Labelled as ‘rational’ due to its Eurocentric nature and character, this mode of knowledge was imposed and accepted within the capitalist world as the sole valid rationality (Quijano, 2014). The history of violence endured by Indigenous populations since the moment of conquest has been marked by successive attempts at assimilation, aimed at integrating them into the dominant culture, yet failing to eliminate oppression and exploitation. As noted by Schmelkes (2006), at no stage in history have we entirely transcended previous forms of subjugation. Presently, interculturality is championed as a means to address the ‘historical debt’ owed to Indigenous Peoples. However, this debt remains far from settled.
Education, otherness and interculturality
The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples states that ‘all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilizations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind’ and that ‘all doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust’ (United Nations, 2007). However, Indigenous communities in America were never regarded as equals but rather were objectified and exploited by European conquerors. Dussel (2007) asserts that the first thinkers of modern political philosophy to earnestly confront the plight of ‘the other’ and denounce the abuses inflicted on Indigenous Peoples were Bartolomé de las Casas, Francisco de Vitoria and Francisco Suárez. They grappled with issues such as the importance of respecting alterity and the Indigenous Peoples’ right to a ‘claim to truth’, which served as a counterpoint to the colonisers’ ‘universal claim to validity’. European colonisers refused to acknowledge that Indigenous Peoples (‘the other’) possessed their own truths and instead sought to impose an unquestionable, infallible and absolute truth derived from the Old World, enforced through violence (Dussel, 2007). These ideas had their educational counterpart in the implementation of a single, Hispanicising-Christianising curriculum, resulting in a process of deculturation and disregard for the forms of cognitive organisation and knowledge systems of various peoples and cultures (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020).
The assimilationist model aimed to absorb diverse ethnic groups into a presumed homogeneous society by imposing the culture of the dominant group. This model entails a forced unlearning of Indigenous cultures and languages, resulting in a profound loss of cognitive, cultural and symbolic richness for these communities (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020). In line with this idea, public educational institutions have promoted the formation of a supposed ‘national identity’, overshadowing the specific identities of Indigenous Peoples (Hirmas, 2008). School has been one of the institutions where efforts to homogenise each country have been most clearly observed, imposing a ‘universal’ or ‘Western’ knowledge, and prioritising ‘single thought’ (pensamiento único) over diversity (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020). This effort to create a homogeneous society extended to the prohibition of Indigenous students from using their native or mother tongue, often accompanied by physical punishment for those who disobeyed this mandate (Lavanchy, 2011).
Over the years, education in Latin America and the Caribbean has alternated between approaches such as cultural and linguistic homogenisation, inherited from the colonial period, and interculturality, which emphasises the recognition of the socio-cultural identity of multilingual and pluricultural countries. Nevertheless, despite the progress made towards interculturality, a persistent challenge remains: the failure to fully comprehend Indigenous epistemic systems. This perpetuates the misconception that learning within these populations is merely experimental or arbitrary. In fact, Indigenous Peoples possess distinct worldviews, and traditional educational processes are carefully crafted based on the observation of nature (Barnhardt and Kawagley, 2005), acknowledging the crucial importance of preserving a delicate balance among all natural species. On numerous occasions, these communities have interpreted phenomena such as storms, droughts, earthquakes or volcanoes as manifestations of Nature’s anger when it perceives itself as being assaulted (Guadarrama González and Martínez Dalmau, 2023). The fact that such considerations had a mythical character does not mean they lacked rationality (Lévi-Strauss, 2012).
Indigenous education may appear to be unplanned or unstructured, as it is built from parameters very different from those of more positivist formal education. However, this does not imply that it cannot generate alternative pedagogical forms that are much better suited to the learning processes of Indigenous populations (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020). Educational institutions have the potential to foster cultural diversity by emphasising the cultural relevance and significance of learning within the school context. This entails addressing themes of identity and acknowledging students’ experiences, prior knowledge and worldviews on entry into the educational system (Hirmas, 2008). Nevertheless, these forms of knowledge have historically been marginalised and deemed ‘inferior’ due to the negative evaluation of differences inherent in standardised educational programmes.
For learning to be meaningful, it must be culturally relevant and acknowledged as valuable. Despite this, there is a significant lack of understanding of the diverse needs of different ethnic groups. For example, the school calendar often overlaps with the agricultural calendar in countries such as Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador and Guatemala, resulting in high absenteeism (Abarca Cariman, 2015). It is also important to note that education encompasses more than just rights and technical procedures; it extends far beyond mere subsistence or employment. For Indigenous Peoples, education is deeply intertwined with culture, spirituality, community, beliefs and values, as well as with relationships, perceptions and communication with the environment. It also encompasses the intergenerational relationships between elders, adults and children, and it shapes the communal way of life, both as an individual and as part of the community (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020).
In recent years, formal advancements through human rights treaties and conventions have played a significant role in raising the importance of the education and recognition of Indigenous Peoples on the political agenda. For instance, the Declaration on Cultural Diversity (UNESCO, 2002) underscores the significance of integrating language, culture and traditional or culturally appropriate teaching methods in the educational process. The Declaration also states the need to cooperate in order to safeguard the linguistic heritage of humanity and supports expression, creation and dissemination in the greatest possible number of languages.
But can something really be changed while the power relations between different groups remain intact? As Tubino (2005, p. 5) has stated: ‘social asymmetry and cultural discrimination make authentic intercultural dialogue unviable. Therefore, one should not begin with dialogue but rather with questioning the conditions of dialogue.’ Perhaps even the possibility of dialogue should be questioned since, as Dussel points out, classical historiography only accounts for the ‘winners’, suppressing the version of events from the ‘defeated’. (A similar idea was elaborated by Walter Benjamin [1940] in his ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’ or ‘On the Concept of History’.) For instance, the European version of the conquest of America is widely known, unlike that of the conquered Indigenous Peoples. Interculturality challenges this premise by proposing processes of negotiation, exchange of knowledge and social co-construction in appreciation of the other.
Intercultural bilingual education
Contemporary Latin American Indigenous bilingual education has its origins in the early twentieth century, marked by pioneering experiments conducted by teachers in Indigenous communities across Mexico, Peru and Ecuador. Initially, it was conceived as an instrument of assimilation: emphasising language development and evangelisation (Sichra and López, 2008). As Indigenous demands grew stronger in the late 1970s and early 1980s, a discursive shift took place in most countries, marking a turn from top-down state indigenism to a more grassroots and critical approach (Sichra and López, 2008). Since then, several Latin American countries (Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, México, Nicaragua, Panamá, Paraguay, Perú, Suriname and Venezuela) have implemented programmes in the framework of IBE.
IBE has gradually shifted its focus towards the recognition and incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and practices. This transition from top-down language and educational planning to bottom-up approaches extends beyond the technical aspects of learning and teaching. It aims to equip individuals with the necessary skills and commitment to collectively combat racism and discrimination (Sichra and López, 2008). However, despite these efforts, challenges persist in fully realising the objectives of IBE. These include the integration of Indigenous languages into the curriculum, the development of intercultural models that embrace diversity and the reinforcement of inclusive policies within the Latin American and Central American nation-states (Hecht and Loncon Antileo, 2011).
The recognition of the ethnic and linguistic plurality of these nations led to the production of educational programmes in two languages. However, this did not necessarily entail a genuine recognition of Indigenous languages. Hirmas and Blanco (2009) have suggested that this bilingual bicultural approach was orientated towards strengthening identity, with an emphasis on rescuing native languages. Nevertheless, this conception leads, although by different paths, to the same consequence that it seeks to avoid: cultural isolation and absence of exchanges. Despite efforts to promote inclusive and intercultural education in Latin America and North America, some teachers continue to rely on rote-learning, blackboard copying and dictation, which are persistent features of pedagogy in many regions (Sichra and López, 2008). The emphasis on inclusive and intercultural education in national curricula underscores the importance of aligning teacher training with these principles (Hirmas, 2008).
De-colonial pedagogy emerges as a promising approach to achieve these objectives, as it aims to challenge and dismantle the epistemic structures of coloniality while fostering new social, political, cultural and intellectual conditions. In this conception, pedagogy extends beyond traditional teaching and knowledge transmission processes to become a form of cultural policy (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020). Since the 1990s, education policies have aimed to transition from the recognition of multiculturalism to the embracing of interculturality. Unlike multiculturalism, which often fosters tolerance with each group maintaining discrete spaces, interculturality seeks to create bridges that allow for the renegotiation of social positions established through historical processes (ECLAC, 2014). Interculturality emphasises the intrinsic connection between educational processes and the socio-cultural contexts in which they unfold. From this perspective, the cultural universes of the actors are integrated into pedagogical actions, a central tenet in the teachings of Paulo Freire (Ferrão Candau, 2010).
IBE and interculturality represent distinct approaches to addressing cultural diversity in education. This difference carries significant practical implications: while IBE is the educational model advocated by Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendant populations, interculturality seeks to provide education for all with the aim of dismantling asymmetrical social relationships and positions. The ultimate goal of interculturality is the integration of cultural diversity into the entire education system, ensuring that education caters to the needs of all groups, including hegemonic ones (ECLAC, 2014). Indigenous leaders have advocated for the societal-wide adoption of interculturality, arguing that throughout history Indigenous Peoples have always been required to learn from non-Indigenous groups, whereas the reverse has rarely been true (Sichra and López, 2008). Ultimately, multiple challenges arise in completing what has so far been the unfinished IBE project. These include resolving political and epistemic tensions and ensuring that programmes are adequately supported with the necessary human and material resources. Teacher training constitutes another major challenge, as it must break away from the normative construction of interculturality and engage in a dialogue with Indigenous communities based on their specificity and needs.
Discussion
Cultural diversity can be a source of creativity, growth and human development. But in Latin America a particular concept of development has prevailed, understood as a process of homogenising modernisation, where cultural diversity, particularly expressed in its Indigenous and Afro-descendant population, has been considered an obstacle to growth, rather than an opportunity for development (Hirmas, 2008). The formal recognition of Indigenous Peoples in the constitutions of many Latin American countries and human rights conventions has not significantly impacted on education, but it has put their situation on the political agenda, prompting some initiatives aimed at preserving their language and culture.
Although the aspiration of an intercultural education has meant an advance in the right of Indigenous Peoples to have their own education, in practice this has been of poor quality, lacking in resources and results, and has not become a relevant response with the minimum conditions required for proper operation (Hirmas, 2008). In some cases, both parents and children have resisted such models, fearing they may be of inferior quality compared to formal schooling. This is particularly the case in regions where communities have encountered schools without proper equipment or development opportunities compared to mainstream schools (Comboni Salinas and Juárez Núñez, 2020).
One of the many challenges is to ensure that IBE goes beyond cultural assimilation or mere folklore, and that it promotes a true intercultural dialogue. To achieve this, it is necessary to foster the participation of communities in the design and evaluation of policies that concern them, legitimising their role as valid interlocutors and active participants in solving the problems that affect them (Hecht and Loncon Antileo, 2011). This is especially challenging because in Latin America, public policies have historically had an assistance-based approach that seeks to compensate for ‘deficiencies’ rather than recreate rights and promote participation, or have been heavily centralised, not taking into consideration the specificity of local communities (Zsögön, 2020). It could also be asked whether it is appropriate for the state to carry out this decolonising programme, since it represents only one domain – that of institutional politics – interconnected with other domains of the colonial matrix (Mignolo, 2017).
To be properly implemented, IBE requires participatory management and dedicated human resources at all levels. However, whether of Indigenous origin or not, teachers most generally represent the interests of the hegemonic sectors, since they are, in fact, government officers (Sichra and López, 2008). This undermines the potential of education to benefit communities: a pedagogy that is decontextualised and exclusionary not only devalues local culture but also fosters a passive and dependent attitude among students (Hirmas, 2008).
The IBE programme has the potential to intersect with the concept of transmodernity as proposed by Enrique Dussel. Transmodernity entails an intercultural dialogue that transcends the confines of the academic or institutionally dominant world, which often asserts deeply asymmetric knowledge systems. Instead, it embraces perspectives from Indigenous, feminist, anti-racist and anti-colonialist social movements. These movements affirm that knowledge is not universal or homogeneous, but pluriversal, recognising the diverse and interconnected nature of knowledge (Dussel, 2007). Despite efforts to implement IBE programmes, substantial challenges persist due to ongoing economic disparities and the disproportionate impact of poverty, health issues, crime and human rights abuses on Indigenous Peoples. Of particular concern is the expropriation of their territories, as land holds both material and spiritual significance for Indigenous communities. The right to land is enshrined in Article 10 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which stipulates that ‘Indigenous Peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories’, and that ‘no relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous Peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation’. But the re-primarisation of the economy has caused strong pressures on the territories of Indigenous Peoples and triggered numerous socio-environmental conflicts that remain unresolved (ECLAC, 2014). The situation of Indigenous leaders’ environmental defenders is particularly fragile, constantly threatened by activities such as mining, illegal logging or drug trafficking: in 2023 alone, 77 Indigenous defenders in Latin America were killed (Cultural Survival, 2024).
Even though education alone cannot guarantee socio-economic equality, it can improve living conditions and attempt to reduce inequalities, as well as contributing to the survival and valorisation of Indigenous languages. Nevertheless, it is necessary to reflect on the political implications of educational inclusion and consider to what extent it is desirable and relevant for different ethnic groups in its current form. For the most part Indigenous claims are more concerned with ‘the need to achieve equality with dignity and simply to continue being Indigenous and are no longer preoccupied only with issues of school access and coverage’ (Abarca Cariman, 2015, p. 9). Therefore, it is necessary for educational strategies to position IBE within the rights linked to Indigenous demands for territory, natural resources, political participation, identity and language recovery.
In this context, we highlight the relevance of UNESCO’s proposal, which suggests that for too long, education has been based on a growth-focused modernist development paradigm. Moving towards a new ecologically orientated understanding of humanity that integrates our ways of relating to Earth requires an urgent rethinking of education for the 2050 horizon (UNESCO, 2021). In the face of the potential ecocide threatening humanity, the ideas inherent in the cosmologies of Indigenous Peoples become relevant and begin to be incorporated into various laws, even when their origin is not explicitly recognised (Guadarrama González and Martínez Dalmau, 2023).
Finally, the acknowledgement of diversity calls for a critical review of enduring historical processes wherein cultural differences have been shaped by colonial structures of power. These structures, rooted in a matrix of domination established since the conquest of America, have deepened stereotypical and stigmatising perceptions of Indigenous Peoples within the national states of the region (ECLAC, 2014). However, intercultural education is not only essential for marginalised and discriminated sectors but also for those who perpetuate discrimination (Hirmas, 2008). Only through this inclusive approach can we achieve an education that contributes to the construction of more just, fraternal, supportive and genuinely intercultural societies.
Notes
- The capitalisation of Indigenous Peoples is intended to act as a recognition of their status as peoples in international law and their right to self-determination (also used by the United Nations in response to demands from Indigenous representatives). ⮭
- Among the countries that adopted ‘rights of nature’ as central to their legal and social systems are Ecuador (in 2007) and Bolivia (in 2009). ⮭
- It could be argued that legislation is somewhat ambiguous regarding these populations: it is one thing to recognise their rights as citizens and another to perceive them as collective subjects, which does not seem compatible with the individualistic proposals of social liberalism and its uniform notion of citizenship (Bartolomé, in García Canclini, 2006). ⮭
Declarations and conflicts of interest
Research ethics statement
Not applicable to this article.
Consent for publication statement
Not applicable to this article.
Conflicts of interest statement
The author declares no conflict of interest with this work. All efforts to sufficiently anonymise the author during peer review of this article have been made. The author declares no further conflicts with this article.
References
Abarca Cariman, G. (2015). Educación intercultural bilingüe: Educación y diversidad [Bilingual intercultural education: Education and diversity]. Apuntes Educación y Desarrollo Post 9 : 1–18.
Amnesty International. (2024). Indigenous Peoples Rights, Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/Indigenous-peoples/.
Barnhardt, R; Kawagley, A. O. (2005). Indigenous knowledge systems and Alaska native ways of knowing. Anthropology & Education Quarterly 36 (1) : 8–23, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2005.36.1.008
Benjamin, W. (1940). On the concept of history. Accessed 11 November 2024. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/benjamin/1940/history.htm.
Cárdenas, V. H. (1998). Los derechos de los pueblos indígenas en América Latina [The rights of Indigenous peoples in Latin America]. Comisión Estatal de Derechos Humanos del Estado de Jalisco.
Comboni Salinas, S, Juárez Núñez, J. M J. M (eds.), . (2020). Interculturalidad y diversidad en la educación: Concepciones, políticas y prácticas [Interculturality and diversity in education: Concepts, policies and practices]. Universidad Autónoma Metropolitana, Unidad Xochimilco.
Cultural Survival. (2024). In Memoriam: Remembering 77 Indigenous defenders who were murdered in 2023 in Latin America. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/news/memoriam-remembering-77-Indigenous-defenders-who-were-murdered-2023-latin-america.
Dussel, E. (2007). Materiales para una política de la liberación [Materials for a politics of liberation]. Facultad de Filosofía, UANL.
ECLAC. (2014). Los pueblos indígenas en América Latina [Indigenous Peoples in Latin America]. Naciones Unidas.
Ferrão Candau, V. (2010). Educacion intercultural en America Latina: Distintas concepciones y tensiones actuales [Intercultural education in Latin America: Different conceptions and current tensions]. Estudios Pedagógicos 36 (2) : 333–342, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-07052010000200019
García Canclini, N. (2006). Diversidad cultural en América Latina y el Caribe [Cultural diversity in Latin America and the Caribbean]. OEI–UNESCO.
Guadarrama González, P; Martínez Dalmau, R. (2023). Las cosmologías de los pueblos originarios sobre la Naturaleza y su influencia en el constitucionalismo [The cosmologies of Indigenous Peoples on nature and their influence on constitutionalism]. Novum Jus 17 (2) : 171–192, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14718/NovumJus.2023.17.2.7
Hecht, A; Loncon Antileo, E. (2011). Educación intercultural bilingüe en América Latina y el Caribe: Balances, desafíos y perspectivas [Intercultural bilingual education in Latin America and the Caribbean: Assessments, challenges and perspectives]. Fundación Equitas.
Hirmas, R. C. (2008). Educación y diversidad cultural, Oficina Regional de Educación de la UNESCO para América Latina y el Caribe. OREALC/UNESCO.
Hirmas, R. C; Blanco, G. R. (2009). Educar en la diversidad cultural: Lecciones aprendidas desde la experiencia en América Latina [Educating in cultural diversity: Lessons learned from the experience in Latin America]. Accessed 23 November 2024. http://www.sigeyucatan.gob.mx/materiales/1/d5/p3/3.%20Educar%20en%20la%20diversidad.pdf.
International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together: A new social contract for education; executive summary. UNESCO. Accessed 11 December 2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379381.
Lavanchy, A. (2011). ¿Cual interculturalidad en Chile? [What inter-culture in Chile?. Educación intercultural bilingüe en América Latina y el Caribe: Balances, desafíos y perspectivas [Intercultural bilingual education in Latin America and the Caribbean: Assessments, challenges and perspectives]. Hecht, A, Loncon Antileo, E E (eds.), Fundacion Equitas, pp. 18–31.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (2012). Mito y significado [Myth and meaning]. 3rd ed. Alianza.
Méndez, R. (2008). Los derechos indígenas en las constituciones latinoamericanas [Indigenous rights in Latin American constitutions]. Cuestiones Políticas 24 (41) : 101–125. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://biblioteca.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/R22392.pdf Accessed.
Mignolo, W. D. (2017). Critical epistemologies of global politics: Interview, 1 June. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.e-ir.info/2017/06/01/interview-walter-d-mignolo/.
Quijano, A. (2014). Colonialidad del poder y clasificación social [Coloniality of power and social classification]. CLACSO, Buenos Aires. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.clacso.edu.ar/biblioteca/eje1-7.pdf.
Schmelkes, S. (2006). La interculturalidad en la educación básica [Interculturality in basic education]. Revista PRELAC, no. 3 (December 2006). OREALC/UNESCO Santiago.
Sichra, I; López, L. E. (2008). Intercultural bilingual education among Indigenous peoples in Latin America. PROEIB Andes–Program of Professional Development in Intercultural Bilingual Education for the Andean Countries. Universidad Mayor de San Simón, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-30424-3_132
Tubino, F. (2005). La praxis de la interculturalidad en los Estados Nacionales Latinoamericanos [The praxis of interculturality in Latin American National States]. Cuadernos Interculturales 3 (5) Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=55200506.
United Nations. (2007). United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous Peoples. UN Wash 12 : 1–18.
United Nations. (2010). State of the world’s Indigenous Peoples [press release], 14 January. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/SOWIP/press%20package/sowip-press-package-en.pdf.
UNESCO. (2002). Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity. UNESCO, Accessed 11 December 2024. https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000127162.
UNESCO, International Commission on the Futures of Education. (2021). Reimagining our futures together. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://www.unesco.org/en/articles/reimagining-our-futures-together-new-social-contract-education.
World Bank. (2015). Indigenous Latin America in the twenty-first century. Accessed 23 November 2024. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/145891467991974540/pdf/Indigenous-Latin-America-in-the-twenty-first-century-the-first-decade.pdf.
Zsögön, C. (2020). Childhood and social policy in the borders: A view from Latin America. Sociologia: Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto 39 : 39–55, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.21747/08723419/soc39a3