Of course I’m writing this week’s experience blog on Machu Picchu. I’m not unique. I’m not immune to the lure.
Despite all I’ve read and heard about the making of Machu Picchu — the inequalities, extractivism, and displacement — I can’t help thinking, I want to bring my parents here. I’m going to be honest; ever since we arrived in Aguas Calientes, I’ve been trying so hard not to cry. So hard, guys. It’s not exactly homesickness, it’s more of a yearning? Sort of like a: I can’t believe I get to see all these amazing, beautiful, and ancient structures (natural and man-made) and my parents don’t. All my parents know about Peru is Machu Picchu (which speaks volumes to how much Machu Picchu has come to represent Peru) and they were so, so, so excited for me to visit. What have I done to deserve this privilege? I’m not getting any further into this. (My younger brother Jerry is not included in this discussion because his response to any travel plan is, “Why can’t we just look at it on Google Images?”. Disappointing, I know.)
Machu Picchu is just… it’s just so beautiful! We do a lot of intellectualizing in this class, which is I know is very important. But on Thursday, standing in that place abandoned 400 years ago, I couldn’t help but just feel. I felt awe, and like many people have said before, nostalgia and a longing for something I’ve never known.
The tour guide said something about another site that was more important, but that was not opened for visitors due to the fact that the majority of it is now covered by greenery. I can’t remember specifics. Was it Vilcabamba? Machu Picchu was less covered, and so people went in to remove the plants and begin restoring the site. I’m unsure how I feel about this. We’ve been told multiple times the Incas had a deeply respectful and reciprocal relationship with nature, and I think we need to remember that people are very much part of nature too. I think the arrival of the Spanish severed this relationship in countless places, including Machu Picchu where the people abandoned (fled?) the city. With nobody around to maintain this relationship, perhaps it is now the right of the plants to take over the place. However, with the return of people to this place, I wonder if the people responsible for the oversight and restoration of Machu Picchu have re-initiated good relationships with the land. Somehow, I doubt they have. I’ll ask again the question I asked in class: what does it mean to restore a ruin? Could we not consider the plants to be doing their own version of restoration work?
P.S. I’m really sad I forgot to recreate the Che Guevara photo at Machu Picchu, so I’ll have to go back one day to do that. Here’s my rendition of it at the Pinkuylluna ruins today. (Me on the left and Che on the right, in case you couldn’t tell the difference.)
- credits for annie in editing these photos together since wordpress was being mean
4 replies on “Of course this is about Machu Picchu”
Cissy! I love reading your blogs. Also boo your brother, he’s missing out. Thank you for labeling the photos.
I wonder too about the value of restoring a ruin to make it into something of a living museum versus leaving it for nature to complete the cycle. I know maybe the ethical answer is to let nature take its course but selfishly , I wanna see these places! I think there is intellectual value in uncovering/restoring/maintaining a ruin. But I do agree with your quandary of when to stop? I don’t really know, but I do think we should remember and share these places in a responsible way.
“However, with the return of people to this place, I wonder if the people responsible for the oversight and restoration of Machu Picchu have re-initiated good relationships with the land.” Especially in the context of your blog post, this question is fascinating.Especially in the context of your blog post, this question is fascinating. I would dare to think that this is not always present in the minds of restaurateurs. There is an ideal image of Machu Picchu that they aspire to but that is far from the earthiness of the site, or so Rice told us in his book. How is that connection with the past recovered in restaurateurs? Is it an attitude, an affect, a conviction?
Hi Cissy! I loved this thing you said:
“With nobody around to maintain this relationship, perhaps it is now the right of the plants to take over the place. However, with the return of people to this place, I wonder if the people responsible for the oversight and restoration of Machu Picchu have re-initiated good relationships with the land. Somehow, I doubt they have.”
You’re so right, reciprocal relationships with the land were so vital to the Incas and their culture, and to see that both respected (as at the other more important site) and perhaps disrespected for touristic value at Machu Picchu, is a very jarring difference. I have a feeling it all comes down to money, most things like this do. Machu Picchu makes a ton of money, so they are constantly trying to stave off the vegetation to create more individual ‘attractions’ within the site.
Cissy, I love the way you write!
“My younger brother Jerry is not included in this discussion because his response to any travel plan is, ‘Why can’t we just look at it on Google Images?'”
Jerry is on his way to becoming a letrado!
“We’ve been told multiple times the Incas had a deeply respectful and reciprocal relationship with nature, and I think we need to remember that people are very much part of nature too.”
I think this is super important! Alongside questioning the way people associate the Incas with nature (are the Spanish and us contemporary Westerners then associated, in contrast, with culture??) it is important to remember that Macchu Picchu and Lima are kind of just complex human anthills.