Nowadays, the concept of multiculturalism is widely accepted by many Latin American countries, one of which is Honduras. At the same time, the state has created an own model of the multicultural pluralism, which suggests that the self-determination of a nation can be based on the constructions of blackness and indigeneity, which can coexist and effectively complement each other. An example is a policy concerning Garifunas, a group of the black origin that has accepted the culture of Indians. Accordingly, they were given a legal framework equal to the one enjoyed by the indigenous people. In such a manner, the case of Honduras is a unique example among the countries of Latin America as in this state, the black population has got an opportunity to claim a cultural position that is the same to that of indigenous people.

When answering the question about what this reading is, one can say that its main topic is the Afro-Indigenous Policy in Honduras, particularly towards the population of Garifuna. The first main point of the article is connected with the property law. It was issued in Honduras in 2004 and was a step backward on the issue of recognizing collective land rights. It granted the same rights to third parties as to members of the indigenous community. Consequently, it drew an angry rebuke from ethnic activists (Anderson, 2007). Such a law is an example of neoliberal multiculturalism, which is the policy of government aimed at adjusting the limited recognition of cultural difference to neoliberal principles of the decentralization and privatization.

The second main point of the article suggests that after Honduras had accepted the policy of multicultural pluralism, it managed to develop its own version of the state multiculturalism by incorporating indigenous and black people living in the country into a single unit. In turn, this strategy allows both groups to enjoy collective rights, which are realized within a particular legislative framework based on the legal equivalence. In turn, there is a tendency in Honduras to consider Garifunas as a distinctive cultural group, which, in spite of its racial difference, is culturally similar to the indigenous people. The third main point of the article suggests that modes of the representation of identity, which are used by the indigenous and black population, can easily coexist. It means that in the given country,a person or a group of people can be regarded as both the indigenous and the black. In turn, this attitude is connected with the activity of Garifuna activists, which began in the 1980s and primarily targeted positioning these people as indigenous (Anderson, 2007). However, later, activists from the Garifuna organization became to claim their blackness and tried to obtain equal rights with the indigenous people on this basis. In the long run, Garifuna has managed to claim a cultural position that is equal to the position of the indigenous population. When turning to the main questions of the given article, it can be said that the first question considers how radicalized groups ofwhich began in the 1980s and primarily targeted positioning these people as indigenous (Anderson, 2007). However, later, activists from the Garifuna organization became to claim their blackness and tried to obtain equal rights with the indigenous people on this basis. In the long run, Garifuna has managed to claim a cultural position that is equal to the position of the indigenous population. When turning to the main questions of the given article, it can be said that the first question considers how radicalized groups ofwhich began in the 1980s and primarily targeted positioning these people as indigenous (Anderson, 2007). However, later, activists from the Garifuna organization became to claim their blackness and tried to obtain equal rights with the indigenous people on this basis. In the long run, Garifuna has managed to claim a cultural position that is equal to the position of the indigenous population. When turning to the main questions of the given article, it can be said that the first question considers how radicalized groups ofGarifuna has managed to claim a cultural position that is equal to the position of the indigenous population. When turning to the main questions of the given article, it can be said that the first question considers how radicalized groups ofGarifuna has managed to claim a cultural position that is equal to the position of the indigenous population. When turning to the main questions of the given article, it can be said that the first question considers how radicalized groups ofindigenas manage to obtain the same legal status as ethnic groups. The second question focuses on how and to what extent different ethnic activists and state officials can draw differences among people based on their racial and religious distinctiveness.

While reading this article, I had several questions regarding the unique character of the Honduran model of multiculturalism. For example, I was interested in the prerequisites of the country’s choice of granting collective rights to the Indian and black population, and how those rights were realized. In turn, this question led to my desire to know more about the history of both indigenous Indians of the country and the black population, which came from Africa. It was interesting to me to find out that there were many similar cases of the assimilation of marooned African slaves with indigenous people. One of the best-known examples of such assimilation was the case of Garifuna, which together with eight more ethnic groups in Honduras constitute more than 7% of its population (Anderson, 2007). At the same time,it was interesting to me to trace historic changes in the position of Garifuna in Honduras as there were several national identity projects in the country. Generally, these projects excluded the way of recognizingBlacksas ancestors of the nation of the country. However, Garifuna has managed to find the way of presenting itself as a group, which has the right to the recognition of being indigenous in view of its traditional culture and identity. Also, I found it confusing that although the government of Honduras has not completely challenged the legal equivalence between the indigenous and black people, some initiatives have caused the division of organizations that support racialized differences between representatives of the two populations (Anderson, 2007). Thus, even now, the black people have to appeal to their indigeneity in order to justify their rights, which, in some way, can be considered to have a hint of the racial discrimination. In addition,it should be noted that organizations of Garifuna such as OFRANEH and ODECO create alliances with other black organizations of Latin America with the view to fighting with such discrimination and make their ‘blackness’ more visible (Anderson, 2007).

The given article helped me to do my powerpoint presentation for me and find out and trace the history of the development of the African Diaspora in Honduras, the representatives of which, namely Garifuna, have collective rights with the indigenous population due to the legal framework of the country. Therefore, the article also allowed me to understand the uniqueness of the Honduran case in its contribution to explaining the concept of multicultural pluralism based on the recognition of entangled relations between the black and indigenous populations.