With the election of Evo Morales in Bolivia, a figurative circle has been completed in the Latin American region; the indigenous peoples have come back into the power that was stripped of them hundreds of years ago. They are no longer under the power of the Spanish and European descended individuals, they have popularly elected a man that represented the beliefs and desires that they have wanted for centuries. The film, Cocolera, details this plight and triumph for the native peoples through the Bolivian election, exhibiting how the indigenous were able to gain the greatest victory in Latin American history.

“Native people have been living in the sierra for ten thousand years” (Fields 40), is a statement that clearly shows the rightful control over land in Latin America. However, even though the natives established a community and their own political structure in the area, the European invaders felt as though their divine right for expansion was reason enough to conquer and claim the new land. By overpowering the native tribes, the invaders “forcibly settled indigenous farmers in colonial towns and instituted a labor draft” (40) in order to exploit natural resources for Europe’s gain, rather than for the native country itself. In modern day Latin America, especially in Bolivia, the natural resources continue to be primarily for foreign markets, harvested by indigenous-descendant peoples.

A primary issue involving the indigenous peoples and their constant fight with the foreign government that controls their countries is the politically correct wording of requests. The people publicly protest and show their desires for wanting the land that was unrightfully taken from them centuries ago, but the governments have maintained control through the simple use of wording that they place in the indigenous peoples’ mouths. Even though the people have requested control over the “territory” that supposedly belonged to the native Indian tribes, but the politically correct wording from the government prevents the transfer of land. “The debate over these terms was a struggle over meaning, legitimacy, history, and identity” (Sawyer 77) as the government stated that they did not distribute “territory,” only land to “ethnic” people instead of natives. These blatant words keep an oppressive government in complete control over the people, using the obvious prejudices they have for the people they consider low. In Suzana Sawyer’s article, she clearly states how the country of Ecuador had oppressed the indigenous peoples by stereotyping them as unproductive people, refusing to harvest the forests even though the country boasts itself as an “Amazonian country” (76).

Evo Morales was clearly the underdog in the elections, running for and representing a people that were considered to be naturally “below” the foreign descendants of the Europeans that had long ago invaded the area. However, by representing the farmers and poverty-stricken people of Bolivia, he gained a great advantage that his opponent did not have; popularity. A majority of the people in the country felt as though Morales represented the in all ways possible, heritage wise and politically wise. He experienced what is felt like to be a farmer and depending on his harvest for survival, and he also experienced what it felt like to get the short end of the stick in political decisions by people that truly did not know their issues. Overall, Morales victory brings the line into a complete circle, and the true people come into power once more.