Mexico is acknowledging that at least two well-known Mayan ruin sites are unreachable by visitors because of cartel violence or land disputes.

Mexico’s government has acknowledged that at least two well-known Mayan ruin sites are unreachable by visitors because of a toxic mix of cartel violence and land disputes.

But two tourist guides in the southern state of Chiapas, near the border with Guatemala, say two other sites that the government claims are still open to visitors can only be reached by passing though drug gang checkpoints.

The explosion of drug cartel violence in Chiapas since last year has left the Yaxchilán ruin site completely cut off, the government conceded Friday.

  • @[email protected]
    10•10 months ago

    Meanwhile, officials concede that visitors also can’t go to the imposing, towering pyramids at Tonina, because a landowner has shut off across his land while seeking payment from the government for granting the right of way. […]

    But the damages are mounting for the Indigenous residents who have come to depend on tourism.

    “There are communities that sell handicrafts, that provide places to stay, boat trips, craftspeople. It affects the economy a lot,” said the first guide. “You have to remember that this is an agricultural state that has no industry, no factories, so tourism has become an economic lever, one of the few sources of work.”

    Maybe you shouldn’t be so eager to celebrate the site being shut down

    • Flying Squid
      3•10 months ago

      Sorry, how does that change what I just said? Do you think the landowner got that land from the Mayans for a fair deal?

      • @[email protected]
        3•10 months ago

        I think you’re assuming a lot about the landowner and ignoring the many native people who benefit from the tourism

        • Flying Squid
          4•10 months ago

          And those native people wouldn’t benefit from the same tourism if they owned the land themselves?

          What am I assuming exactly? The land used to belong to the Mayan people, hence a city being there, and now it belongs to one rich landowner. Or do you dispute the entire history of the conquest of Central America?