"We can speak of a re-creation," Jeffrey Gould observes in Chapter 3, "because those Sutiaban identities that in the nineteenth century revolved around municipal politics and government, communal land, and distinctive religious, cultural, and linguistic practices (including a separate language) had come to an end" (121). Often, when we think about race, we imagine it in terms of physical, perhaps biological, characteristics which become associated with non-biological, behavioral or social characteristics. Throughout most of Gould's book, he seems to tell a different kind of narrative, one wherein a group's racial identity is constructed not through physical or biological traits, but through purely cultural practices. Ironically, through the imagination of a shared biological cohesiveness, i.e., Mestizaje, the Nicaraguans succeeded, to a large extent, in negating the cultural identity of many Indian communities. Although this is reminiscent of the "racial democracy" of Colombia described by McGraw and although these groups continued to be essentialized in more obvious racial terms (being "naturally fearful" and the like), this seems very different from the ways we have thought about racial construction so far. This seems to be a process of wiping out a racial or ethnic group by wiping out their cultural cohesiveness and subsuming them into an all-inclusive imagined community which would seem to belie the fact that many of these communities have been somewhat isolated and have endured relatively little (genetic) variation, as Gould often describes them as "endogamous." Is this a different kind of racial construction than we have seen, or maybe just a different twist?
I agree, this books seems to acknowledge, that Nicaragua completely created a new imagined community and didnt want to acknowledge the past that had been present. Instead of supporting the indigenous peoples in this country they let the indigenous assimilate to a larger nation and destroyed a groups own identity.
Your observations are very useful when analyzing this book within the context of a national mixed-race identity and the resulting narrative of “irrelevance” and the elite’s desire to remove the indigenous people from Nicaraguan history; in fact to make them extinct. I see the relevance of your comparison with McGraw’s book, connecting the indigenous population of Nicaragua and the story of Afro-Colombian’s in their fight for universal citizenship. However, it is important to interject the “myth of mestizaje” (3) and its place in the national discourse. Gould posits that “...the emergence of a discourse of citizenship rights involved the material and cultural suppression of a discourse of community.”(71) What was the reason for this suppression, aside from a racist ideology? The elite believed that Indigenous groups were incapable of modernizing, and therefore, blocked the economic future of Nicaragua. The elites campaign to privatize Indigenous lands resulted in the expropriation of communal lands (usually by violent means) and which was the leading influence in the active elimination of the Indigenous culture (population). Can we say that, racial assumptions put aside, it was agrarian capitalism that compromised Indigenous cultures in Nicaragua and most of Central America?
Mike, I'm inclined to say that Gould's book is a different take on race/race-making--not so much because he's introducing new ideas, but simply for the fact that his study takes place in a geographic region we've yet to explore. I believe that Gould, along with McGraw and Earle, have all been engaged with the myth of mestizaje in one way or another, but perhaps Gould's text appears to be a departure from these other texts because he's a bit more 'straight-forward' about his theoretical framework. I think it's easy to recognize that Gould is working within the same constructs as the other authors I mentioned were; his definition of mestizaje, at the bottom of page 10, was the example that most resonated with me.
Imagining, myth-making, and the creation of homogenous populations have been the driving forces behind all of the examples of race-making we've seen in the last couple of weeks, and which we'll probably continue to see as we continue in the course.
Roberto's question about agrarian capitalism is a really important one. How "structural" is this story, ultimately? Is it possible to put racial assumptions aside, as Roberto puts it and see the story only in those terms?
Also, to speak to the questions Mike and Ricardo are raising, how do you view this book in light of the larger story that Rebecca Earle tells in her book? How is the reality of what happens on the ground in Nicaragua related to the kinds of contradictions (between a glorious indigenous past and a problematic indigenous present) that she points out? And finally, how is what happens in Nicaragua linked to the particular way that indigenous people have been radicalized? (So that if this is a different kind of racial construction, it makes sense in terms of the longer history of indigenous radicalization...)
Frankly, a red flag always up whenever idea of discussing race without class (or vice-versa) is presented. And I don't think I'm the only one: just in this course we've seen that although it's possible to look at these histories through an economic lens--as was the case with David Wheat's book--doing so seems to "soften up" the impact of the deprivations (usually affecting people of color) at the ground-level, and that can make folks (as a few of us were that particular class) uncomfortable.
This weeks reading focused on the indigenous peoples living in the country of Nicaragua. This book reminded me a lot with the reading last week about Mexico. Just like we discussed last week with the idea of the rise of liberalism within a former colonial world, land owning was clearly apart of the larger issues Latin American countries clearly had to tackle. The taking of land and the distribution of land from Indians into new communities really challenged the old understanding of being indigenous.
“A protest by the Comunidad Indigena of San Lucas, a former Sandinista bastion, also revealed something of the ambiguity of indigenous identity during the post-Sandino years. In 1935, 600 members of the San Lucas community protested the annexation of Santa Isabel, their settlement, to the municipality of Somoto, the departmental capital. “ (186) Clearly similarly to gerrymandering and Native American reservations, indigenous protest was the only way to fight back the land reforms happening in the country. Ultimately we should discuss how different this land reform changed indigenous identity within a larger Latin American nation.
Anthony, your last point is really important in that it emphasizes a really important aspect of this text, the many ways Indians in Nicaragua demonstrated agency and resistance in the face of liberal ladino encroachment on their property, identity, rights, and existence. This resistance and agency are clearly at odds with what Gould describes as the ladino's "essentialist" notions about Indian character, namely that they are passive, childlike followers, ideas which would seem to go back to the 1600s and the elaborate discussions of AmerIndians by Spanish theologians (Vitoria and the like). I also thought about this in the context of Dr. Caplan's article, but what I thought was interesting was the way that the Mexican liberal state dealt with indigenous communities by continuing to recognize them as distinct and, to some extent, autonomous communities with a specific and unique historical relationship to the crown and then the state. Again, it seems likely that this approach in Mexico can also be traced back to colonial racialized perceptions about Indians as childlike dependents. At the same time, I am also thinking about the shift in terminology from "Indian" to "indigenous" in the Caplan piece. Is this perhaps comparable to what Gould is describing throughout his text? Are they different ways of reimagining Indians in order to deny their existence?
This week's readings really focuses on what Gould argues, "the Myth of the Mestizaje" or the myth that indigenous people in Nicaragua were largely invisible to the majority of its citizens in the Twentieth century. That being said, I believe that "To Die In this Way" really focuses on culture more than any of the readings we have had so far, specifically how the Nicaraguan Mestizo/elite/ladino is essentially attempting to erase native culture.
Gould quotes Anthony Pagden in his notes in saying, "their culture destroyed by the conquerors, both lay and ecclesiastical and their identity all but erased by Spanish efforts to 'civilize' them, the living Indians were ill-suited to play the role of the heirs to the Aztec Empire" (174), which ultimately connects to our earlier conversation on race and the differentiation of the contemporary indigenous and pre-colonial native. However, how is Nicaragua different according to Gould?
Also, how does "cultural alienation" essentially make the indigenous Nicaraguan become "forgotten" and how can this be an example of an imagined community that we discussed last week, and in return nation-building. Also how does language and identity fit in this conversation on culture?
Yes-- I think the book raises interesting questions about race and culture, in particular as it relates to the radicalization of indigenous people in general. How was "culture" (or behavior) always central to that racialization, and what are the implications of that for indigenous people's identities as we move into the twentieth century? How does that kind of racialization shape what is possible for indigenous people in terms of survival and resistance?
I thought this concept was very interesting. Negating a peoples directly at the source of their culture. If you can find a way to invalidate culture, there isnt a strong basis to build race off of, as I would think that physical characteristics are linked to cultural identity. This book does a great job of outlining this difference in race making and something that I was totally not expecting to see.
Mike's comment above made me curious if other folks also felt that Gould's book this week was a new kind of race-making, where (to quote Mike) "a group's racial identity is constructed not through physical or biological traits, but through purely cultural practices." From our last couple of class discussions, I was under the impression that we had reached a general consensus is recognizing that most race-making efforts were, in fact, enacted through the stratification/appropriation of cultural practices. In the case of Gould's book, he posits that mestizaje is a phenomenon that exists beyond Nicaragua and the story he's told (283), which makes me want to guess that he's referring to the stories that we've seen in (at least) the last three sets of readings we've worked with..but I could be wrong.
I think you are right in that I don't think we've seen any cases in this class in which "race" isn't also culturally determined (that is along with biology). This might be an extreme case of that-- because of the specifics of Nicaragua-- but I think it's particularly consonant with what we know about HOW indigenous people were racialized (never really in a straightforward biological way). But I think it's interesting to think about how this is ALSO true about people of African descent, even though their racialization is more clearly biological).
Gould does a good job of demonstrating the co-dependence, and potential confusion, of race and culture. He examines the attempt to erase a race of people, the myth that Nicaragua had a monolithic race as part of their national identity. However, that this race could be erased through socially constructed structures makes me question whether this is a question of race or culture. Race being based at least marginally on biology, seems to be an essential assumption if a mixed race can be created through individuals intermingling and reproducing. Gould then discusses how a loss of community and culture came to exist through the efforts of the church, state, political parties, local intellectuals, and landed elites, which are all social structures. While I believe culture is essential to the survival of individuals and creates the context in which people live, the idea that social structures can contribute to the destruction of a partially biological structure makes me wonder what tenants culture and race have in common. What is necessary for something to be defined as a race instead of a culture and vice versa?
Good observation, I agree culture is essential to the survival of individuals. To identify a race or culture, first, it has to have their origin. Of course, race and culture could come together, but what makes them the difference is their principles such as language, religion, and dress. However, I believe that biologically is very difficult to vanish a DNA such as the Incas. For instance, some citizens still have Inca’s DNA in Cuzco, Peru. Therefore, I agree with Gould perspective that when numbers of Nicaraguans lost their history, they lost their identity as well.
The Reading of this week makes me wonder how an empire could survive even if they are conquered. As we read, there were some Latin American countries felt proud of their histories such as Mexico and Peru. However, why did not other "indigenas" cities feel the same patriotism such as Nicaragua and Chile? In this case, Gould examined Nicaraguan as a lost culture. The Spanish American power and influence of an imaginary system of non-racism confused most Nicaraguan indigenes during the 1900s. At that period as Gould pointed out, they did not remain their origin because of mestizaje. Besides, they claimed they were tricked again by Ricos! (pg. 266). I hypothesize that Nicaraguan and other Latin countries lost their Indio history because they did not have the same empire as Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas did. For example, Tupac Amaru II before he died by four horses for him to be quartered, he said: “Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta" (Mother Earth, witness how my enemies shed my blood). These words remarked for most mestizos or Indios to continue their rebellion against Spain. In that sense, there was not mestizaje or Spanish power that could make to forget Peruvian Mestizos and “indigenas” their origin. I believe the same goes for Mexicans. Nicaraguans lost their identity when they became citizens. In addition, they lived an invisible system of non-racism, without having the power to complain as well as Afro-Colombian.
"We can speak of a re-creation," Jeffrey Gould observes in Chapter 3, "because those Sutiaban identities that in the nineteenth century revolved around municipal politics and government, communal land, and distinctive religious, cultural, and linguistic practices (including a separate language) had come to an end" (121). Often, when we think about race, we imagine it in terms of physical, perhaps biological, characteristics which become associated with non-biological, behavioral or social characteristics. Throughout most of Gould's book, he seems to tell a different kind of narrative, one wherein a group's racial identity is constructed not through physical or biological traits, but through purely cultural practices. Ironically, through the imagination of a shared biological cohesiveness, i.e., Mestizaje, the Nicaraguans succeeded, to a large extent, in negating the cultural identity of many Indian communities. Although this is reminiscent of the "racial democracy" of Colombia described by McGraw and although these groups continued to be essentialized in more obvious racial terms (being "naturally fearful" and the like), this seems very different from the ways we have thought about racial construction so far. This seems to be a process of wiping out a racial or ethnic group by wiping out their cultural cohesiveness and subsuming them into an all-inclusive imagined community which would seem to belie the fact that many of these communities have been somewhat isolated and have endured relatively little (genetic) variation, as Gould often describes them as "endogamous." Is this a different kind of racial construction than we have seen, or maybe just a different twist?
ReplyDeleteI agree, this books seems to acknowledge, that Nicaragua completely created a new imagined community and didnt want to acknowledge the past that had been present. Instead of supporting the indigenous peoples in this country they let the indigenous assimilate to a larger nation and destroyed a groups own identity.
DeleteYour observations are very useful when analyzing this book within the context of a national mixed-race identity and the resulting narrative of “irrelevance” and the elite’s desire to remove the indigenous people from Nicaraguan history; in fact to make them extinct. I see the relevance of your comparison with McGraw’s book, connecting the indigenous population of Nicaragua and the story of Afro-Colombian’s in their fight for universal citizenship. However, it is important to interject the “myth of mestizaje” (3) and its place in the national discourse. Gould posits that “...the emergence of a discourse of citizenship rights involved the material and cultural suppression of a discourse of community.”(71) What was the reason for this suppression, aside from a racist ideology? The elite believed that Indigenous groups were incapable of modernizing, and therefore, blocked the economic future of Nicaragua. The elites campaign to privatize Indigenous lands resulted in the expropriation of communal lands (usually by violent means) and which was the leading influence in the active elimination of the Indigenous culture (population). Can we say that, racial assumptions put aside, it was agrarian capitalism that compromised Indigenous cultures in Nicaragua and most of Central America?
DeleteMike,
DeleteI'm inclined to say that Gould's book is a different take on race/race-making--not so much because he's introducing new ideas, but simply for the fact that his study takes place in a geographic region we've yet to explore. I believe that Gould, along with McGraw and Earle, have all been engaged with the myth of mestizaje in one way or another, but perhaps Gould's text appears to be a departure from these other texts because he's a bit more 'straight-forward' about his theoretical framework. I think it's easy to recognize that Gould is working within the same constructs as the other authors I mentioned were; his definition of mestizaje, at the bottom of page 10, was the example that most resonated with me.
Imagining, myth-making, and the creation of homogenous populations have been the driving forces behind all of the examples of race-making we've seen in the last couple of weeks, and which we'll probably continue to see as we continue in the course.
Roberto's question about agrarian capitalism is a really important one. How "structural" is this story, ultimately? Is it possible to put racial assumptions aside, as Roberto puts it and see the story only in those terms?
DeleteAlso, to speak to the questions Mike and Ricardo are raising, how do you view this book in light of the larger story that Rebecca Earle tells in her book? How is the reality of what happens on the ground in Nicaragua related to the kinds of contradictions (between a glorious indigenous past and a problematic indigenous present) that she points out? And finally, how is what happens in Nicaragua linked to the particular way that indigenous people have been radicalized? (So that if this is a different kind of racial construction, it makes sense in terms of the longer history of indigenous radicalization...)
DeleteFrankly, a red flag always up whenever idea of discussing race without class (or vice-versa) is presented. And I don't think I'm the only one: just in this course we've seen that although it's possible to look at these histories through an economic lens--as was the case with David Wheat's book--doing so seems to "soften up" the impact of the deprivations (usually affecting people of color) at the ground-level, and that can make folks (as a few of us were that particular class) uncomfortable.
DeleteThis weeks reading focused on the indigenous peoples living in the country of Nicaragua. This book reminded me a lot with the reading last week about Mexico. Just like we discussed last week with the idea of the rise of liberalism within a former colonial world, land owning was clearly apart of the larger issues Latin American countries clearly had to tackle. The taking of land and the distribution of land from Indians into new communities really challenged the old understanding of being indigenous.
ReplyDelete“A protest by the Comunidad Indigena of San Lucas, a former Sandinista bastion, also revealed something of the ambiguity of indigenous identity during the post-Sandino years. In 1935, 600 members of the San Lucas community protested the annexation of Santa Isabel, their settlement, to the municipality of Somoto, the departmental capital. “ (186) Clearly similarly to gerrymandering and Native American reservations, indigenous protest was the only way to fight back the land reforms happening in the country. Ultimately we should discuss how different this land reform changed indigenous identity within a larger Latin American nation.
Anthony, your last point is really important in that it emphasizes a really important aspect of this text, the many ways Indians in Nicaragua demonstrated agency and resistance in the face of liberal ladino encroachment on their property, identity, rights, and existence. This resistance and agency are clearly at odds with what Gould describes as the ladino's "essentialist" notions about Indian character, namely that they are passive, childlike followers, ideas which would seem to go back to the 1600s and the elaborate discussions of AmerIndians by Spanish theologians (Vitoria and the like). I also thought about this in the context of Dr. Caplan's article, but what I thought was interesting was the way that the Mexican liberal state dealt with indigenous communities by continuing to recognize them as distinct and, to some extent, autonomous communities with a specific and unique historical relationship to the crown and then the state. Again, it seems likely that this approach in Mexico can also be traced back to colonial racialized perceptions about Indians as childlike dependents. At the same time, I am also thinking about the shift in terminology from "Indian" to "indigenous" in the Caplan piece. Is this perhaps comparable to what Gould is describing throughout his text? Are they different ways of reimagining Indians in order to deny their existence?
DeleteI just posted the same message above, more-or-less. I didn't see your reply to Anthony's post. Sorry Mike.
DeleteThis week's readings really focuses on what Gould argues, "the Myth of the Mestizaje" or the myth that indigenous people in Nicaragua were largely invisible to the majority of its citizens in the Twentieth century. That being said, I believe that "To Die In this Way" really focuses on culture more than any of the readings we have had so far, specifically how the Nicaraguan Mestizo/elite/ladino is essentially attempting to erase native culture.
ReplyDeleteGould quotes Anthony Pagden in his notes in saying, "their culture destroyed by the conquerors, both lay and ecclesiastical and their identity all but erased by Spanish efforts to 'civilize' them, the living Indians were ill-suited to play the role of the heirs to the Aztec Empire" (174), which ultimately connects to our earlier conversation on race and the differentiation of the contemporary indigenous and pre-colonial native. However, how is Nicaragua different according to Gould?
Also, how does "cultural alienation" essentially make the indigenous Nicaraguan become "forgotten" and how can this be an example of an imagined community that we discussed last week, and in return nation-building. Also how does language and identity fit in this conversation on culture?
Yes-- I think the book raises interesting questions about race and culture, in particular as it relates to the radicalization of indigenous people in general. How was "culture" (or behavior) always central to that racialization, and what are the implications of that for indigenous people's identities as we move into the twentieth century? How does that kind of racialization shape what is possible for indigenous people in terms of survival and resistance?
DeleteI thought this concept was very interesting. Negating a peoples directly at the source of their culture. If you can find a way to invalidate culture, there isnt a strong basis to build race off of, as I would think that physical characteristics are linked to cultural identity. This book does a great job of outlining this difference in race making and something that I was totally not expecting to see.
ReplyDeleteHi all,
ReplyDeleteMike's comment above made me curious if other folks also felt that Gould's book this week was a new kind of race-making, where (to quote Mike) "a group's racial identity is constructed not through physical or biological traits, but through purely cultural practices." From our last couple of class discussions, I was under the impression that we had reached a general consensus is recognizing that most race-making efforts were, in fact, enacted through the stratification/appropriation of cultural practices. In the case of Gould's book, he posits that mestizaje is a phenomenon that exists beyond Nicaragua and the story he's told (283), which makes me want to guess that he's referring to the stories that we've seen in (at least) the last three sets of readings we've worked with..but I could be wrong.
I think you are right in that I don't think we've seen any cases in this class in which "race" isn't also culturally determined (that is along with biology). This might be an extreme case of that-- because of the specifics of Nicaragua-- but I think it's particularly consonant with what we know about HOW indigenous people were racialized (never really in a straightforward biological way). But I think it's interesting to think about how this is ALSO true about people of African descent, even though their racialization is more clearly biological).
DeleteGould does a good job of demonstrating the co-dependence, and potential confusion, of race and culture. He examines the attempt to erase a race of people, the myth that Nicaragua had a monolithic race as part of their national identity. However, that this race could be erased through socially constructed structures makes me question whether this is a question of race or culture. Race being based at least marginally on biology, seems to be an essential assumption if a mixed race can be created through individuals intermingling and reproducing. Gould then discusses how a loss of community and culture came to exist through the efforts of the church, state, political parties, local intellectuals, and landed elites, which are all social structures. While I believe culture is essential to the survival of individuals and creates the context in which people live, the idea that social structures can contribute to the destruction of a partially biological structure makes me wonder what tenants culture and race have in common. What is necessary for something to be defined as a race instead of a culture and vice versa?
ReplyDeleteGood observation, I agree culture is essential to the survival of individuals. To identify a race or culture, first, it has to have their origin. Of course, race and culture could come together, but what makes them the difference is their principles such as language, religion, and dress. However, I believe that biologically is very difficult to vanish a DNA such as the Incas. For instance, some citizens still have Inca’s DNA in Cuzco, Peru. Therefore, I agree with Gould perspective that when numbers of Nicaraguans lost their history, they lost their identity as well.
DeleteThe Reading of this week makes me wonder how an empire could survive even if they are conquered. As we read, there were some Latin American countries felt proud of their histories such as Mexico and Peru. However, why did not other "indigenas" cities feel the same patriotism such as Nicaragua and Chile? In this case, Gould examined Nicaraguan as a lost culture. The Spanish American power and influence of an imaginary system of non-racism confused most Nicaraguan indigenes during the 1900s. At that period as Gould pointed out, they did not remain their origin because of mestizaje. Besides, they claimed they were tricked again by Ricos! (pg. 266). I hypothesize that Nicaraguan and other Latin countries lost their Indio history because they did not have the same empire as Mayas, Aztecs, and Incas did. For example, Tupac Amaru II before he died by four horses for him to be quartered, he said: “Ccollanan Pachacamac ricuy auccacunac yahuarniy hichascancuta" (Mother Earth, witness how my enemies shed my blood). These words remarked for most mestizos or Indios to continue their rebellion against Spain. In that sense, there was not mestizaje or Spanish power that could make to forget Peruvian Mestizos and “indigenas” their origin. I believe the same goes for Mexicans. Nicaraguans lost their identity when they became citizens. In addition, they lived an invisible system of non-racism, without having the power to complain as well as Afro-Colombian.
ReplyDelete