This paper analyzes the social inequities lived by the Mexican indigenous population beginning from its condition as a minority group, focusing particularly on the case of health, it being understood that it reflects the conditions that are in other spheres of the social structure. As such, with a design of quantitative nature and an explorative scope, during the period of November 2012 through October 2013, a diagnostic assessment was conducted on the situation experienced by the Mexican indigenous population, utilizing a methodology of ethnic focus proposed by the Pan American Health Organization, finding that such group presents notable disadvantages and inequities in the distinct main topics that are integrated in the analysis, which contrasts it with the recorded data of the non-indigenous population of the country. The previously stated allows confirming that in Mexico the ethnic origin factor is a determining aspect for the living social inequities and affects the conformation of the minority groups.
The ethnicity consists in identifying itself with an ethnic group and feel part of it, excluding themselves from other groups in virtue of such affiliation, in a way that the other ethnic groups are distinguished by sharing cultural similarities among their members, such as beliefs, values, costumes, habits, norms, language, religion, history, kinship, geography and or race, and for its differences with other groups [
One of the ethnic groups that have historically been considered as a minority in Mexico, and in a global level, is made up by the indigenous population, who actually constitute the 6.7% of the national population [
As such, this paper analyzes the social inequities that live the Mexican indigenous population in their minority quality, focusing particularly in the issue of health, with the understanding that the conditions that they have in such areas integrate and show what occurs in other phases of social life. Like the part of the background of the subject, it was found that the actual interest in the inequity in health it has been increased by two key elements [
In this logic, during 2004, the Pan-American Health Organization (PAHO) created the Unit of Genre and Ethnicity with the intention of facilitating the integration of the dimensions of genre and ethnicity as social determinant factors of the equity in health [
In consequence, and with the intention to determine if the gaps exist in the situation of health of the Mexican indigenous communities, in contrast with the non-indigenus population, an elaboration was created in an analysis about the situation of health of the Mexican indigenous community, the same integrates the guidelines of the PAHO for the Diagnostic of the situation in health with an ethnic focus [
For the prior, and from the remarks about the incidence of the ethnicity in the situation in health of the indigenous population, the particular objective of the present job was to identify and categorize the differences in health that live the Mexican indigenous population in respect to the national non-indigenous population. The importance of an analysis such as the one here presented eradicates on contributing relevant comparative data that allows dimension of the problem expressed in the middle of a national setting that lacks the specific comparative data, since the sanitary statistics of the country do not count with the information mentioned. As such, although since 2001 a constitutional reform was produced that promoted the recognition of the indigenous population as subjects with rights, deriving in the establishment of heath as a category of backwardness and inequality, to the date studies that allow to give dimension and categorize such lack have not been realized, at the same time does not allow the decision makers to use elements to fight the gaps in health through the foundation, design, and execution of public sanitary policies with an ethnic focus.
The present papers constitutes a study of quantitative focus and exploratory reach, in all that describes, compares, and establishes the magnitude of the differences of the health situation in the Mexican indigenous population and the national non-indigenous population. As such, as the PAHO methodology [
Whereas in the first stage of work it was warned that there lacked the indicators and the general and the specific records, about the conditions of health that the national indigenous population lives, choosing to complete the work through the proposal of the PAHO [
As mentioned before, for effects of this diagnosis the UT’s have been selected as the ten states with the higher indigenous population (Oaxaca with 34.2% of indigenous population, Yucatan with 30.3%, Chiapas with 27.2%, Quintana Roo with 16.7%, Guerrero with 15.1%, Hidalgo wit 15.1%, Campeche with 12.3%, Puebla with 11.7%, San Luis Potosi with 10.7% and Veracruz with 9.4%) according with the data [
Here the results of the diagnostic made are presented, ordered according to the thematic axes of health that make up the ethnic approach methodology presented.
In this area the variables and indicators that make up the dimensions of multidimensional poverty (particularly regarding the lack of educational instruction and lack of housing services such as piped water, drainage and dirt floor), as such as the index of human development and index of marginalization.
As for the multidimensional poverty this is confirmed by the dimensions of the social rights, the economic wellbeing and territoriality; it is said that it is moderate when one person has at least one social deprivation and this income is lesser than the wellbeing like or rather when said person has one of the two social deprivations and their income is lesser than the minimum wellbeing, while it is considered extreme when there exists three or
Units | Population | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Indigenous1 | Non-indigenous | Total | |||||||
UT | State | Amount | Percentage | National proportion | Amount | Percentage | National proportion | Amount | National proportion |
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 1,165,186 | 34.2% | 17.40% | 2,636,776 | 65.8% | 2.49% | 3,801,962 | 3.4% |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 537,516 | 30.3% | 8.02% | 1,418,061 | 69.7% | 1.34% | 1,955,577 | 1.7% |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 1,141,499 | 27.2% | 17.04% | 3,655,081 | 72.8% | 3.45% | 4,796,580 | 4.3% |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 196,060 | 16.7% | 2.92% | 1,129,518 | 83.3% | 1.06% | 1,325,578 | 1.2% |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 456,774 | 15.1% | 6.82% | 2,931,994 | 84.9% | 2.77% | 3,388,768 | 3.0% |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 359,972 | 15.1% | 5.37% | 2,305,046 | 84.9% | 2.18% | 2,665,018 | 2.4% |
UT 7 | Campeche | 91,094 | 12.0% | 1.36% | 731,347 | 87.9% | 0.69% | 822,441 | 0.7% |
UT 8 | Puebla | 601,680 | 11.7% | 8.98% | 5,178,149 | 88.3% | 4.90% | 5,779,829 | 5.1% |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 248,196 | 10.7% | 3.70% | 2,337,322 | 89.3% | 2.21% | 2,585,518 | 2.3% |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 644,559 | 9.4% | 9.62% | 6,998,635 | 90.6% | 6.62% | 7,643,194 | 6.8% |
Subtotal | 5,442,536 | - | 81.23% | 29,321,929 | - | 27.7% | 34,764,465 | 30.9% | |
National amounts | 6,695,228 | 6.7% | 100% | 105,641,310 | 93.3% | 100% | 112,336,538 | 100% | |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 122,411 | 1.5% | 1.82% | 8,728,669 | 98.5% | 8.26% | 8,851,080 | 7.9% |
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
more social deprivations and the income is inferior to the minimum wellbeing line [
In addition, the thematic analysis found that all the entities that concentrate the most indigenous population present rates more elevated of multidimensional poverty that the UT’R (
With regard to the lack of schooling an important gap was found for the indigenous population with respect to the non-indigenous population (
Units | Population in multidimensional poverty | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Percentage | Difference | ||||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | |||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 2,562,522 | 67.4% | 38.7% | 1.00 | |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 948,455 | 48.5% | 19.8% | 0.37 | |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 3,765,315 | 78.5% | 49.8% | 1.48 | |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 458,650 | 34.6% | 5.9% | 0.18 | |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 2,290,807 | 67.6% | 38.9% | 0.90 | |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 1,463,095 | 54.9% | 26.2% | 0.57 | |
UT 7 | Campeche | 413,688 | 50.3% | 21.6% | 0.16 | |
UT 8 | Puebla | 3,537,255 | 61.2% | 32.5% | 1.39 | |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 1,359,982 | 52.6% | 23.9% | 0.53 | |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 4,471,268 | 58.5% | 29.8% | 1.76 | |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 2,540,260 | 28.7% | |||
National | 52,011,817 | 46.3% | ||||
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
Units | Population without educational instruction | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Percentage | Difference | |||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | ||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 524,671 | 13.8% | 11.1% | 2.19 |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 144,713 | 7.4% | 4.7% | 0.60 |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 791,436 | 16.5% | 13.8% | 3.31 |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 64,953 | 4.9% | 2.2% | 0.27 |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 518,481 | 15.3% | 12.6% | 2.16 |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 239,852 | 9.0% | 6.3% | 1.00 |
UT 7 | Campeche | 65,795 | 8.0% | 5.3% | 0.27 |
UT 8 | Puebla | 537,524 | 9.3% | 6.6% | 2.24 |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 201,670 | 7.8% | 5.1% | 0.84 |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 810,179 | 10.6% | 7.9% | 3.39 |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 238,979 | 2.7% | ||
National | 7,751,221 | 6.9% |
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
About the number of households with dirt floors, it was found that in contrast with the non-indigenous population, the gap is very high for the indigenous population (
In respect to the number of households without drainage, the absolute difference shows that Oaxaca, Guerrero, Yucatan and San Luis Potosi have the most gaps, with 28.8, 22.5, 19.3, and 18.4 respective percentage points above what is found in the Distrito Federal, who just has one percentage point of its population it such conditions (
Units | Population with dirt floor | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Percentage | Difference | ||||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | |||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 176,067 | 18.7% | 17.7% | 7.17 | |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 14,200 | 2.8% | 1.8% | 0.57 | |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 160,364 | 14.7% | 13.7% | 6.53 | |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 13,662 | 3.7% | 2.7% | 0.55 | |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 149,111 | 18.4% | 17.4% | 6.07 | |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 47,528 | 7.1% | 6.1% | 1.93 | |
UT 7 | Campeche | 10,042 | 4.7% | 3.7% | 0.40 | |
UT 8 | Puebla | 132,221 | 9.5% | 8.5% | 5.39 | |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 55,601 | 8.7% | 7.7% | 2.26 | |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 235,674 | 11.7% | 10.7% | 9.60 | |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 24,530 | 1.0% | |||
National | 1,773,669 | 6.2% | ||||
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
Units | Households without drainage | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Percentage | Difference | ||||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | |||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 274,929 | 29.2% | 28.2% | 11.2 | |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 102,950 | 20.3% | 19.3% | 4.19 | |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 181,092 | 16.6% | 15.6% | 7.38 | |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 26,216 | 7.1% | 6.1% | 1.06 | |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 190,440 | 23.5% | 22.5% | 7.76 | |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 97,734 | 14.6% | 13.6% | 3.98 | |
UT 7 | Campeche | 30,981 | 14.5% | 13.5% | 1.26 | |
UT 8 | Puebla | 180,934 | 13.0% | 12.0% | 7.37 | |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 123,983 | 19.4% | 18.4% | 5.05 | |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 326,318 | 16.2% | 15.2% | 13.30 | |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 24,530 | 1.0% | |||
National | 2,774,934 | 9.7% | ||||
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
percentage levels recorded towards the national global indicator. For its part, the relative difference shows that Veracruz has 13.30 more times the number of households without drainage than those the Distrito Federal had, meanwhile for Oaxaca this factor is all 11.2, for Guerrero of 7.76, for Chiapas 7.38 and for Puebla of 7.37.
In the topic of the households without running water, the absolute difference shows the gap in this dimension of poverty is more elevated than in the previous ones (
In the same form, and following the variables and indicators about the general conditions of life of the Mexican indigenous population, it should be noted that the notion of the human developments gives priority to the capacity that people have in choosing between the different ways of live that they consider valuable [
Units | Households without running water | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Percentage | Difference | |||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | ||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 640,244 | 68.0% | 55.4% | 2.07 |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 174,458 | 34.4% | 21.8% | 0.56 |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 633,821 | 58.1% | 45.5% | 2.05 |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 107,447 | 29.1% | 16.5% | 0.34 |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 489,472 | 60.4% | 47.8% | 1.58 |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 315,961 | 47.2% | 34.6% | 1.02 |
UT 7 | Campeche | 108,542 | 50.8% | 38.2% | 0.35 |
UT 8 | Puebla | 668,065 | 48.0% | 35.5% | 2.16 |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 241,576 | 37.8% | 25.2% | 0.78 |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 1,055,497 | 52.4% | 39.8% | 3.41 |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 309,082 | 12.6% | ||
National | 8,725,308 | 30.5% |
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
The marginalization refers to the set of problems or social disadvantages of the community or location, making reference to a group of people and families; in a way that it not only lacks of certain opportunities for the development, if not also the possibility of acquiring them [
Units | Human development | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index | Difference | ||||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | ||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 0.6663 | 0.1644 | - | |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 0.7230 | 0.1077 | - | |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 0.6468 | 0.1839 | - | |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 0.7488 | 0.0819 | - | |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 0.6733 | 0.1574 | - | |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 0.7124 | 0.1183 | - | |
UT 7 | Campeche | 0.7291 | 0.1016 | - | |
UT 8 | Puebla | 0.7060 | 0.1247 | - | |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 0.7144 | 0.1163 | - | |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 0.6997 | 0.1310 | - | |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 0.8307 | |||
National | 0.7390 | ||||
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
Units | Marginalization | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Index Scale: 0 to 100 | Difference | ||||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | ||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 80.48 | 77.44 | - | |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 43.70 | 40.66 | - | |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 84.14 | 81.10 | - | |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 25.76 | 22.72 | - | |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 88.72 | 85.68 | - | |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 48.79 | 45.75 | - | |
UT 7 | Campeche | 43.93 | 40.89 | - | |
UT 8 | Puebla | 49.88 | 46.84 | - | |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 46.72 | 43.68 | - | |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 57.63 | 54.59 | - | |
UTR | Distrito Federal | 3.04 | |||
National | - | ||||
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
place in such classification, Chiapas in place number 2, Oaxaca number 3, Veracruz number 4, Puebla number 5, Hidalgo number 6, San Luis Potosi number 7, Campeche number 10, Yucatan number 11, Quintana Roo number 20 and in contrast, the Distrito Federal in place number 32 that is the lowest marginalization.
The second line of the diagnostic analysis is established for the variables and indicators of morbidity, maternal mortality, infant mortality and hope of life at birth. However, only the last two are available. For the topic of infant mortality, the absolute difference with disintegrated data (
In this third area of diagnosis are found the variables and indicators regarding coverage, quality, and cultural adhesion to the health services, but due to the lack of official data, the last points are analyzed in previous research. As such, even though the death rates continue to decline, the indicators of heath of the indigenous populations [
Units | Infant mortality1 | Life expectancy at birth2 | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Population | Absolute difference | Population | Absolute difference | ||||
UT | State | Non-indigenous | Indigenous | Non-indigenous | Indigenous | ||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 14.4 | 23.7 | 9.3 | 76.1 | 74.7 | 1.4 |
UT 2 | Yucatán | 9.1 | 18.7 | 9.6 | 77.0 | 75.6 | 1.4 |
UT 3 | Chiapas | 18.0 | 24.2 | 6.2 | 75.5 | 74.5 | 1.0 |
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 10.9 | 17.3 | 6.4 | 77.2 | 76.2 | 1.0 |
UT 5 | Guerrero | 14.9 | 31.1 | 16.2 | 75.8 | 73.5 | 2.3 |
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 15.1 | 22.2 | 7.1 | 76.1 | 75.1 | 1.0 |
UT 7 | Campeche | 14.5 | 19.7 | 5.2 | 76.3 | 75.5 | 0.8 |
UT 8 | Puebla | 15.4 | 21.6 | 6.2 | 76.3 | 75.3 | 1.0 |
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 15.6 | 19.8 | 4.2 | 76.2 | 75.6 | 0.6 |
UT 10 | Veracruz | 15.9 | 23.0 | 7.1 | 76.0 | 74.9 | 1.1 |
UTR | Distrito Federal | - | - | - | - | ||
National | 14.0 | 22.8 | 8.8 | 76.8 | 75.1 | 1.7 |
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
In this regard, this diagnostic showed that some Mexican states with larger indigenous population have larger sanitary coverage in contrast with the Distrito Federal. Nevertheless in the latter place, the high state levels of sanitary coverage reach precisely across the above mentioned Seguro popular program (
One of the principal critics that the methodology of the PAHO [
Units | Total sanitary coverage | Sanitary coverage by Seguro popularprogram | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Amount | Percentage | Difference | Amount | Percentage | Difference | ||||||
UT | State | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | Absolute1 UT − UTR = | Relative2 UT/UTR = | ||||||
UT 1 | Oaxaca | 2,129,099 | 56.0% | −7.8% | 0.37 | 1,239,439 | 32.6% | 22.0% | 1.32 | ||
UT 2 | Yucatán | 1,464,727 | 74.9% | 11.1% | 0.25 | 563,206 | 28.8% | 18.2% | 0.60 | ||
UT 3 | Chiapas | 2,724,457 | 56.8% | −7.0% | 0.48 | 1,789,124 | 37.3% | 26.7% | 1.90 | ||
UT 4 | Quintana Roo | 896,091 | 67.6% | 3.8% | 0.15 | 254,511 | 19.2% | 8.6% | 0.27 | ||
UT 5 | Guerrero | 1,806,213 | 53.3% | −10.5% | 0.31 | 1,064,073 | 31.4% | 20.8% | 1.13 | ||
UT 6 | Hidalgo | 1,740,257 | 65.3% | 1.5% | 0.30 | 988,722 | 37.1% | 26.5% | 1.05 | ||
UT 7 | Campeche | 631,635 | 76.8% | 13.0% | 0.11 | 301,836 | 36.7% | 26.1% | 0.32 | ||
UT 8 | Puebla | 2,861,015 | 49.5% | −14.3% | 0.50 | 1,317,801 | 22.8% | 12.2% | 1.40 | ||
UT 9 | San Luis Potosí | 1,887,428 | 73.0% | 9.2% | 0.33 | 858,392 | 33.2% | 22.6% | 0.91 | ||
UT 10 | Veracruz | 4,486,555 | 58.7% | −5.1% | 0.79 | 1,933,728 | 25.3% | 14.7% | 2.06 | ||
UTR | Distrito Federal | 5,646,989 | 63.8% | 938,214 | 10.6% | ||||||
National | 72,569,403 | 64.6% | 26,174,413 | 23.3% | |||||||
Source: Own elaboration, based in [
without doubt describes a first outlook for subsequent investigations. In this regard, the PAHO adds that the lack of specific disaggregated data cannot be an impediment to the analysis, because since the beginning it shows a lack of interest by the States to meet the health care needs of minority populations [
In addition, making the geographic proxy with disaggregated data is a very enriching opportunity, since it shows a greater level of depth and stratification in the comparative with the different Territorial Units (which in this case were the federal entities), what constitutes an advantage for the details of diagnosis, such is the case of 1) the infant mortality, which disaggregated data shows one absolute difference of 8.8 more deaths for the indigenous population in contrast with what happened in the non-indigenous population, even though with the geographical proxy of such data this difference that is higher in three of the states with the highest indigenous population was acquired, Guerrero, Yucatan and Oaxaca that respectively obtain an absolute difference of 16.2, 9.6 and 9.3 decreases more in deaths of children under one year old per thousand live births and 2) the hope of life at birth, where the absolute difference with disaggregated data shows that the indigenous population reaches 1.7 less years of life than the non-indigenous population, however, the geographical proxy of such data indicates that in Guerrero this difference reaches the 2.3 years of life.
Another of the objections that could be stated to the differences observed between the indicators UTs and the UTR is that each one of them has a development proportional to the contributions made with respect to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, states such as Campeche, Veracruz and Puebla provide greater GDP than at least 17 of the remaining states of the country (Appendix A) and yet remain within the group of states that, in addition to recording the largest indigenous populations have higher rates of Marginalization and Human Development, to mention only a couple of items.
Furthermore, and with the intention to discuss the finding of this this analysis, comparative studies of the national health of the Mexican indigenous population and non-indigenous population were searched, but no actual work was identifies or that addressed specifically or the specific theme studied here. Of such way that, except the sources used for this diagnosis it was obtained only in a study that analyzed the health of indigenous people in Mexico, principally during the period between 1990-1996, it was found that the indigenous population had significant strains in their health since in those municipalities with high indigenous population, the rate of deaths from communicable diseases to the indigenous population was similar to that recorded nationwide in 1950, while life expectancy for the period amounted to which it had the year 1980 at a national level [
On the other hand, it notes that the indicators analyzed in this paper shows a huge gap in the health situation of the indigenous population, the same that remains continuous for each of the thematic axes of the problem, what probably is explained by the absence of public policy destined specifically to the Mexican indigenous population, despite the fact that since the beginning of this century the national government and their respective plans have recognized the backwardness and lack in such population as well as the urgency to address them [
The Mexican indigenous population presents a notable disadvantage in the different thematic axis that make up the diagnostic about its health situation, as such for example the gap of multidimensional poverty reaches 35.5 percentage points, figure that remains in the case of extreme poverty, while the vulnerability of the issue lies under the indigenous population that barely receives the 40.5% of the income that the non-indigenous population receives. On that note, the states of Chiapas, Guerrero and Oaxaca are maintained as the federal states with the most inequities in terms of lack of schooling, presenting higher number of homes with dirt floors, no drainage, piped water, as well as a lower Human Development Index, a higher Marginalization Index, a lower total health coverage and a higher sanitary coverage through the Seguro Popular program, whose effectiveness has been questioned.
As such, after this, the analysis reveals substantial differences between the health situation of the Mexican indigenous and non-indigenous population, being the native ethnic groups that are at the most disadvantage in the subject. Allows us to confirm, that on the themes analyzed the factor of ethnicity in Mexico a determinant for the survival of social inequities and affects the conformity of minority groups. So that the result also allows Mexico to confirm that indigenous people are a minority in the full sense of the word, because as we have seen, these are groups that are subordinate in a sociopolitical hierarchy, with less power and less security for access to resources and services that the majority groups [
This analysis through the geographic proxy and without disaggregated data shows huge gaps for the Mexican indigenous population, constituting a valuable tool for dimensioning the subject studied, here the hypothesis states that these gaps will be higher in both can have disaggregated data, as shown in the case of infant mortality, where they could contrast the disaggregated data and data is not disaggregated and a discrepancy oscillating in a range of 2.2 and 16.2 was obtained with more deaths to the states that formed the geographic proxy (Appendix B). Therefore, this study reveals the need to pursue the subject, making detailed and comprehensive scientific research, and the corresponding analysis of public health policy aimed at these people.
Finally, it notes that the right term to name these gaps in living conditions of the populations studied here are social inequities and not social inequalities, since the term inequity alludes a great injustice in the difference found, while the term inequality only signals that there is a lack of equality, rather a difference that is not a problem precisely because ethnic groups are characterized by not being equal in respect to others, for having a characteristic that distinguishes and defines them as such, so the difference is part of a cultural diversity. However, the term inequality minimizes the importance of the issue here under consideration it softens it, eliminating the political, social, cultural implications and the injustice that are background on the prevalence of the issue, eliminating also its unenviable character, and this analysis participates in the idea that the language must be precise since it constructs realities and legitimizes, perpetuating problems that even those from academia or science are outlined in a general manner, as if their existence were natural and not a result of a historical process of social interaction between different groups, characterized by a asymmetric distribution of power, that is precisely what is shaping minorities.
Study realized in the frame of Ph.D. Program on Science, Technology and Society of Cinvestav-IPN (Av. Ins- tituto Politécnico Nacional 2508, Col. San Pedro Zacatenco, Delegación Gustavo A. Madero, Apartado Postal 14-740, 07000 México, D.F., México. Telephone: +52 (55) 57473800, Ext. 6780) and the project Environmental Governance in Latin America and the Caribbean (ENGOV) 2011-2015 (FP7-SSH-2010-3/SSH.2010.4.1-2). Guzmán-Rosas thanks Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (Conacyt).
Susana CarolinaGuzmán-Rosas, (2015) Ethnic Minorities and Social Inequities: A Diagnostic Assessment about the Mexican Indigenous Population. Open Journal of Social Sciences,03,20-34. doi: 10.4236/jss.2015.38002
Comparative graph of Mexican indigenous population and contributions to the GDP by federative entities, 2010. Source: Own elaboration, based in [
Comparative table of inequities in infant mortality of the Mexican indigenous population with segregated values and without segregated values, 2010.
Source: Own elaboration, based in [