Category: Ortiz etc.

La transculturacion es un proceso de cambio cultural inducido por la introduccion de elementos de otra cultura. El crea este termino, transculturacion y lo separa del termino aculturacion, el cual es un proceso de modificacion de una cultura de un grupo debido al contacto con otra. Para Ortiz, el termino transculturacion expresa mejor las diferentes fases del proceso de transicion de una cultura a otra porque esta no consiste en simplemente adquirir otra cultura, que es lo que la aculturacion realmente implica, pero el proceso tambien involucra la perdida de una cultura previa.

En comparacion a las lecturas de Vasconcelos y Wade, Oritz reconoce que el proceso de transculturacion puede ser un Proceso dificil y doloroso. El concepto de transculturacion puede ser relevante hoy en dia ya que nosotros estamos siendo summations a un gran intercampus de ideas que vienen de practicamante todo el mundo. Todo esto gracias a los medios de comunicacion. Tambien, la teoria de mestizaje no abarca procesos sociales, politicos y economicos que permiten a algunos rasgos sociales estar por encima de otros a pesar de incluir una simple mescla de razas.

En la lectura de Millington, la teoria de transculturacion tiene ventajas y desventajas. El sugiere que Ortiz tiene un sentido agudo del porque el termino transculturacion es necesitado en Latino America. El sentido historico y politico de Ortiz son importantes en recordarnos de la intensidad de ciertas realidades Latino Americanas las cuales han empujado a una transculturacion consiente y strategica al frente. Sin embargo, esta teoria tiene desventajas. Entre las desventajas, Millington dice que hay una falta de especificacion, por momentos de procesos culturales y por otro lado tampoco esta claro la conexion entre teoria y circunstancia.

I seem to have gotten behind on my blog in the midst of due dates, essays, exams, etc. But better late than never. In Oritz’s article, he brings to light the concept of transculturation, even suggesting that he is the one to coin the term. He poses this term during the rise of peoples growing usage of ‘acculturation’ suggesting that this phrase is too limiting in its scope. He uses the world ‘transculturation’ to “express the highly varied phenomena that have come about in Cuba as a result of the extremely complex transumtations of culture that have taken place here.” He describes that Cuba’s history is defined by a mixing of people, cultures, ideas, etc. The Spaniards mixed with the indigenous populations, killing the majority, but the remainders nonetheless influenced eachother. In description of this, Ortize writes: “A revolutionary upheaval shook the Indian peoples of Cuba, tearing up their institutions by the roots and destorying their lives.” As the slave trade ferociously brought Africans to Cuba, though marked by incredibly injustices perhaps on par with the treatement of indigenous populations, Africans and Africans culture mixed with indigenous and European cultures creating more cultural mixtures. Ortiz feels that ‘transculturation’ is a better way of describing the phenomanon that took place in the way of cultural mixing in Cuba, as the process of transistion from one culture to another does not consist of merely ‘acquiring’ another’s cultures, but is undeniable also the result of an uprooting and loss of previous culture. I agree with him here; cultural mixing is not merely a result of one taking up the ways of another, but is also the result of the loss that comes along with coercion, subordination, and violence in the process.

In response to this, Millington feels that we must examine this term more closely as he feels that it is being overused. He feels that “these terms seek to excercise some critical leverage on the heirarchichal binaries of imperialism/neo-colony, centre/periphery, identity/otherness, which apparently hold Latin America in their iron grip. The sense is that what is produced by transcultuation or hybridisation does not fit within neat binaries, that it straddles, mixes and disrupts.” Millington feels that bunching many terms together under one ‘master term’ is confusing and at times, inaccurate. What I liked most about this article was when Millington puts into question that optimistic views of marginilized sectors of society as a basis of resistance, when he feels that their marginalization is at best an urgent reminder “of what needs to be done.” While on one hand, in looking at marginilized groups throughout history, we do not want to remove their agency and reciliency in maintianing their own culture in the face of oppression, at the same time, is this triviallizing the injustices they underwent and looking upon the situation too optimistically? Is the idea of culture resiliency in the face of oppression too easy and an optimistic of a conclusion? I thought it was interesting that he actually presented a conclusion on how he felt these issues are to be better addressed: “In my view, the best way of redrawing the cultural-political map is not to shrink back into narrow self-affirmations but, on the one hand, to expose what the dominany cultures are and how they work and are transformed…[and] on the other hand, in order to find and define emancipatory spaces we need to continue trying to understand how specific processes of transculturation function…”

I found this weeks readings a good follow up to Vasconcelos and Wade’s discussion on mestizo. From the readings of Ortiz I found out the limitations of how this term can be used and discussed in certain contexts and how it can be expanded to encompass other subjects. I believed that it is the the natural coming together of people and how it comes out. Vasconcelos believes this leads to a superior mixed race, and Wade thinks it serves a function for displacement and identity questioning.

Ortiz challenges Vasconelos and Wades arguments. Mestizaje according to Ortiz seems to be too narrow of a concept. It does not encompasses economic, social and political processes which allow for some societal traits to be above others, despite including the simple racial mixture. Instead of assimilating the natives to the conquistadors and creating a ‘cosmic race’, instead its about learning how each culture could contribute to one another’s cultures and allow all parties to be in the mixture. Ortiz uses the term of ‘transculturation’ rather than the more commonly know ‘acculturation’. He talks about how this term can encapsulate different complexities of ‘transmutation of culture’ such as class; both economic and social, religion, ethics, art, language, ideology, sexuality and other parts of life.

The two article by Cornejo Polar were very good at explaining how cultural representations are influenced by artistic works of other cultures. Written works of indegenismo which have a European aspect to them by being in prose that describes the native culture.

Millington emphasises the point that trans-culturation is better to the acculturation term. She describes acculturation as referring to a cultural take over as opposed to an mixing or a slow process that influences opposing cultures. Millington goes on to talk about written works that support the thought of the effectiveness of this term. The specific example from Neil Larsen is that transculturation allows for a more equitable cultural influence, performing as a illusion solution that does not deal with the issues of ‘social duality’. While this seems to be true to an extent, it is not completely black or white. I see the this as some sort of quick fix rather than dealing with the real issues that have implications in Latin America.

The readings of this week end enabled me to go deeper in the notion of mestisaje.

I like the way the first text by Ortiz puts a distinction between the terms « acculturation » and « transculturation ». Acculturation means to acquire a new culture, it is « the process of transition from one culture to another ». For Ortiz, transculturation means both to acquire a new culture and to lose another one, be uprooted from another one (deculturation). Transculturation means to lose a part of its culture, to take a part of another one but also the creation of something new so it is a general process of transformation. However, Ortiz emphasizes the fact that in Cuba some people like the Indian people didn’t have this transition and their culture and institutions have been totally destroyed. This text shows that mestisaje could imply a part of violence and oppression: people have to forget their traditions and customs and have to be assimilated. This violent vision of mestisaje is totally opposed to the « romantic » one of Vasconcelos in his text about the cosmic race. Mestisaje is not always the fruit of the peaceful alliance between two cultures but could be the erase of one particular culture in the benefice to another one. In mestisaje, there is a relation of « dominant-dominated »: one culture always prevails on one another. In his text about indigenismo, Cornejo Polar shows that even in literature, there are some cultural cods. Indigenismo is a type of literature focusing on folk: indigenous myths, legends. However, Cornejo Polar asserts that these texts are written to fit to non-indigenous culture. « It is still a mestizo literature ». « If an indigenous literature must come, it will come in due time, when the Indians themselves are able to produce it ». The real indigenous culture is based on oral storytelling or dance, or they use a graphic language. But on the other hand, this kind kind of literature is also a way to resist. It’s a way to prove that the Spanish didn’t destroy all the indigenous culture which still remains. One could analyze mestisaje and transculturation as the domination of one part on another one: the dominant culture on the indigenous one, but even if the dominated culture is minimized, it is still part of the mix and still exists.

This weeks articles explored the terms and associated meanings of transculturation. In the first article by Ortiz we learn of his ideas regarding the terms acculturation and transculutation and that he feels the latter is more appropriate or fitting. He states that the word ‘acculturation’ describes “the process of transition from one culture to another…” Arguing that transculturation as a term is more fitting. In his study he looks at Cuba because of its complex and extremely diverse cultures and “transmutations of culture” that have taken place there. He puts forward the idea of Cuba being similar to a mother and father having children together, the resulting child has similarities to both parents but is ultimately something new. Transculturation is defined throughout as the process from one culture to another.

Antonio Conejo Polar gives us another point of view regarding types of literature in Latin America. He specifically talks of the heterogeneous and homogenous literature and indigenismo literature. I found this second article a bit harder to get into, and I look forward to talking about it in class.

The third reading by Mark Millington examines and analyzes the arguments presented in Ortiz’s ‘Contrapunteo Cubano’. I think Millington does make good points and arguments against Ortiz’s (maybe too positive) outlook on transculturation. The idea that culture is like two people procreating making something new may be too simple. The idea that a culture can just change easily like that and it is not always a nice positive creation in the end.

After reading Vasconcelos and Wade’s discussions on mestizaje, this weeks readings presented an interesting follow up regarding the limitations of certain terms when discussing this topic of cultural and racial mixture. Mestizaje seems to talk about an almost natural process of people coming together and how it plays out. In Vasconcelos opinion, this leads to the creation of a superior race, and in Wade’s it serves as a platform for misplacement and questions of identity.

The readings this week challenge some of what these authors are saying. Mestizaje seems to be too narrow a concept. Although it represents much more than a simple racial mixture, it does not delve deep enough in to the economic, social and political processes which allow for some societal traits to triumph others. As well, unlike ‘the cosmic race,’ where when the conquistadors succeed in assimilating the native cultures the new race is complete, transculturation acknowledges the contributions of all parties involved in mixture.

The first article by Ortiz explains why the use of ‘transculturation’ is used rather than the commonly known term ‘acculturation.” On page 98, Ortiz explains that ‘acculturation is used to describe the process of transition from one culture to another, and its manifold social repercussions.” Ortiz then goes on to describe that ‘transculturation is a more suitable term as it has the ability to encompass more of the complex ‘transmutations of culture’ such as “in the economic or in the institutional, legal, ethical, religious, artistic, linguistic, psychological, sexual, or other aspects of life” (Page 98).

Ortiz uses Cuba as an example for this as the coming together of so many diverse groups on the island, the survival of some, and demise of others, has lead to the “problem of disadjustmment and readjustment, of deculturation and acculturation—in a world of transculturation.” (Page 98). Ortiz talks of not only the various economies and political systems (or lack thereof) influencing this process of transculturation, but also the manner in which the groups came to the island influencing how they influenced or were affected by transculturation.

Most interesting to me was when Ortiz talked of the ‘white men’ from European countries who “brought with them a feudal economy, conquerors in search of loot and peoples to subjugate and make serfs of” (Page 100). Although they came with these lavish intentions, they weren’t necessarily coming from a similar hierarchal status. Ortiz describes these men as having “left their native lands ragged and penniless and arrived as lords and masters” (Page 100). They had visions of power and wealth that they may not have had back in their homeland. Hence, these ‘white men’ had a thirst for domination and power that has carved in to the history of Latin America.

On the reverse side of the spectrum, Ortiz describes the Africans brought in to the country as slaves, ‘socially equalized by the same system of slavery’ (Page 101). Thrown on to ships while soundlessly being assigned their position in the new world, the Africans may not have been allowed their ‘institutions or implements’ but they did bring with them ‘their bodies and souls’ (Page 101). Although the African people were subordinated their culture did and still does leave an imprint on what is Cuban culture. This past summer I went to Cuba and witnessed an all day celebration of ‘Santeria’ in the streets of Havana. Santeria is a good representation of the combination of cultures, as the religion itself is a fusion of the Catholic church and the African’s own God’s, a necessary combination so its presence would be allowed. Transculturation is an appropriate term as it doesn’t involve the loss of one culture in exchange for that of another. All parties involved have an influence on one another’s lives.

I chose to focus predominantly on the first article, however, the following two articles were great supplementary readings. The two articles by Cornejo Polar was excellent, especially in pointing out how cultural representations are influenced by artistic works of other cultures. Such as in the written works of indigenismo which have a European flare by being executed in similar written prose while describing indigenous culture.

The last article by Millington drove home the point that trans-culturation is superior to acculturation, describing ‘acculturation’ as referring to cultural take-over which is too definite a process and undermines the influences cultures have over one another regardless of power position. For balance, Millington does use literature which argues the effectiveness of this term. In an excerpt from author Neil Larsen, the point is brought up that ‘transculturation’ seems to present some sort of fairness of cultural influence, acting as a ‘false solution to the underlying problem of social duality” (Page 266). While this is valid to some extent, I think he is giving too much credit to the term, I see it more as being explanatory then some sort of cure (or band-aid as he would describe).

The first article by Ortiz is a fantastic overview of how Cuba has morphed, rather dramatically, into the country it has become today. He discusses how Cuba experienced so much change is such a small amount of time by stating “The whole Gamut of culture run by Europe in a span of more than four millenniums took place in Cuba in less than four centuries” (Pg. 99). An intrinsic throughout all this change was the idea of Transculturation. This term is used to describe the extremely complex transmutations that have taken place in Cuba with regards to culture, economics, institutions, legal, ethical, religious, artistic, linguistic, psychological, sexual, and numerous other aspects of life. Cuba is so unique because it was settled by people from all over Europe and Africa intertwined by the Indians that were already there. The result has been a culture that is truly unique and reflective of all the different backgrounds involved. Ortiz sums it up perfectly near the end of the article “…the result of every union of cultures is similar to that of the reproductive process between individuals: the offspring always has something of both parents but is always different from each of them” (Pg. 103). I enjoyed this article, it was an excellent read and provided me with a great synopsis of how Cuba has come to be such a unique and diverse nation.

This weeks three readings on theories of mixture were very intriguing. The term transculturation is brought into use in the firs article on Cuba. Fernando explains that in Cuba there has been so many cultures of which have influenced have been so diverse and overshadow in importance to everything. Following this paper Polar begins to talk about literature. Both indigenismo and Heterogeneous literatures are examined. I felt as though when Polar gave some specific cases of homogeneity and heterogeneity I was better able to understand the concepts better. Later on in this piece a quote by Jose Carlos Mariategui caught my attention. “If an indigenous literature must ome, it will come in due time, when the indians themselves are able to produce it” ( Polar 108) This quote caught me off guard and is highly debatable and I personally feel it to be untrue. There is an assumption made that acknoledable Indigenous literature has not already emerged. Finally there is Millingtons paper. I felt his paper for me was a a paper that brought the prior papers and itself together. Talking about ideas and concepts in the last papers and bringing and metamorphing some new ones. In conclusion it is evident that the perception and ways we think of Latin America has been affected by tranculturation. From here however, I believe we need to anaylize and try to understand the processes that affect cultural views and there social realtions.

The first reading from this week pertains specifically to Cuban culture and the elements that it consists of. The author uses the term transculturation to denote the mixing of various cultures and races which resulted in the evolution of every aspect of Cuban life; however, in his description he makes it clear that some of this mixing was violent and painful. I found this text to be a very interesting read, since it provided a more in-depth analysis of the cultural factors of a specific country. The text describes the different cultures that are represented in modern Cuban culture- two of the major influences were from Europe and Africa. These two regions which were key contributors to Cuban culture could not have been more different: on the one hand, the Europeans brought incredible new technologies, and in effect ushered in a new era. In contrast, the African influence arrived in the form of battered slaves who were torn from their homes and shipped across an ocean to serve European landowners. Like the native Cubans, the slaves were thrown into a culture that was entirely distinct from their own; however, in contrast to the European element, this was not their choice.
The author of the second text discusses indigenista literature, and brings up a very good point about the role that context plays in the interpretation of it. When a piece of literature is taken out of cultural and historical context, much of the meaning is lost. I believe he said this in regards to similarities between Latin American literature and European literature; the point he is making is that while there are necessarily similarities between them, Latin American literature has its own distinctions.
The third reading for this week was by Mark Millington, who referred back to Ortiz’s idea of transculturation from the first reading. One of Millington’s observations is that while many people overlook the “human dimension” of transculturation, Ortiz places the emphasis on “human beings as the bearers of culture and frequently as the victims of cultural change.” However, while Millington admires and agrees with some of what Ortiz says, he also feels that at times Ortiz’s text is confusing and “not wholly coherent”.
Overall, I found these readings to be very interesting; perhaps it was because they (especially the first one) dealt exclusively with one country and the processes which shaped the culture of that particular place.

I thoroughly enjoyed the readings for this week. Similar to our readings on “mestizaje”, it was interesting to read work by the original author of studies on “transculturation” and then be able to read work by an author who tests the arguments presented by the originator. I found the Ortiz article and Millington article fairly straight-forward to read. However, the Cornejo-Polar reading was slightly harder for me to follow and relate to the topic of transculturation.

The idea of transculturation seems to be quite an ambiguous and debatable topic, similar to mestizaje. However, as discussed in class, it is this exact ambiguity and lack of a concrete definition for these terms that makes it vital to figure out exactly what they mean. Ortiz describes this term transculturation, which seems to be a much more positive concept than mestizaje. It combines the notion of “disadjustment and readjustment, of deculturation and acculturation” (p.98). The case of transculturation is an interesting one. I particularly liked how Ortiz stressed that “one of the strange social features of Cuba [is that] all its classes, races and cultures, coming in by will or by force, have all been exogenous and have all been torn from their places of origin” (p. 100). I think this is an important point that is often overlooked in these discussions of cultural mixing. The people of Cuba (to use it as an example), assembled in a particular social hierarchy according to their cultural background, did not arrive to Cuba necessarily as part of that social standing. The Europeans came from a variety of countries, backgrounds, and classes, but upon arrival they were the “masters”. The Africans also came from a variety of countries and classes, but they became the “slaves”. I feel this point is often forgotten or ignored in discussions of cultural mixing in Latin America.

The Cornejo-Polar text on indigenismo was a bit harder for me to grasp. However, what I understood from the article was that a problem occurs in literature whereby there exists “an unequal relationship between its system of production and consumption on one hand, and the referent on the other, granting notable supremacy to the former and obscuring the latter under the force of the interpretation that is superimposed upon it.” (p. 107). Conflict occurs when text written in one context is read and interpreted in a different context to the one the author meant it to be interpreted in. The reader has power over the writer to impose their own views and ideas onto the text, potentially taking away meanings the author had never intended. I’m not entirely sure how the concepts and ideas described in this article exactly relate to the topic of transculturation, so I’m hoping these ties will be made clearer in class dicussion.

I felt like Millington did bring up some convincing weaknesses in Ortiz’s arguments. I especially liked Millington’s argument that the simile of the embrace in Ortiz’s definition of transculturation is “rather bland and unconvincing at this stage, and it would be interesting to hear more about how the Africans in Cuba ’embraced’ the cultures of Europe and how the Spaniards on the island ’embraced’ African cultures” (p.263). I feel that this idea of “embrace” is rather unconvincing. While, in transculturation, we do see exchanges between 2 cultures, these exchanges are not necessarily voluntary and “embraced” in a positive way, as Ortiz defines it. Sometimes these exchanges arise simply because two cultures are forced to co-exist, and inevitably they begin to influence one another, whether voluntarily or not.

I think I was doing pretty well with the term “transculturation” until I reached Millington’s article.  According to Millington “transculturation stands alone as a description of a process of mixing” and “hybridisation… is linked with hybridity as a general concept… and with hybrid as a label for the product which is the outcome of a mixing process.”  Now, would this “mixing process” be transculturation?  And if so, can someone be labeled as hybrid after a process of transculturation?

The readings for this week talk about the concept of transculturation.

Ortiz presents the word as an alternative to acculturation, which he argues implies an acquiring of culture. He says that the process undergone in Cuba and the Americas as a whole (to varying extents) is more like a mother and a father giving birth to a child, whereas the result is something original and unique. He calls the process a social phenomenon that has implications on every aspect of life in Cuba and somehow summarizes its history (“the real history of Cuba”) extremely well in just five pages. I thought his use of the appropriately Caribbean metaphor “a hurricane of culture” in reference to Europe coming to the America’s was fascinating: “A revolutionary upheaval shook the Indian peoples of Cuba…” It was an interesting excerpt from the Cuban Counterpoint and is extremely relevant to everything we’ve been talking about in class. There are problems in that it seems to oversimplify, as Millington touches on. I feel like if Ortiz’s “real history” were made any more analytical or in depth his idea of transculturation would become much more complicated. I noticed that automatic spell-check doesn’t like the word either.

Millington seeks to rethink Ortiz idea, much like Peter Wade with mestizaje. He draws out some problems with Ortiz argument and presentation and applies the concept to the modern world, where we know that cultures aren’t Moms and Dads and globalization and some other -izations increasingly blur the lines between seemingly everything.

Polar writes about ‘indigenista’ literature and the need to understand how interpreting something in one context that is made in another is problematic. He never actually uses the world transculturation in the first part, but he invokes the concept subconsciously throughout. Even though I’m not familiar with indigenismo I thought it was interesting how he shows that “indigenista is not indigenous.” Basically, he explains, indigenismo is a more Western-oriented style that resignifies aspects of indigenous culture.

All the readings this week were great; maybe they’re just starting to make more sense, though.

These week’s readings discuss several complex academic terms all related to Latin American post colonial societies and there structures. I think that the real complexity raised by such concepts is the different understandings and interpretations of each writers…

The first short passage of Fernando Ortiz’s book describes ‘transculturation’ as a constitutive historical feature of Cuban society. I liked the way he emphasizes the violence of these different phases of immigration for humans themselves: he gives to this historical account a powerful and tragic resonance. I found relevant his definition of transculturation as the transition to a new culture trigerring the painful loss of another; however I had troubles with his comparing of the oppression of African slaves in Cuba to the so-called ‘terror’ of European oppressors! To refer to his clever and meaningful metaphor, European immigrants have been a real ‘hurricane’. To him, transculturation is more than the passage from one culture to another. Ortiz describes the culture acquired as something completely new which mixed both features of the place of origin and the place of arrival. To represent this process he alludes to human reproduction which reminded me of Vasconcelos words in the Cosmic race. His text was full of allusions to reproduction and love as the priviledged way to create a new race. Although Ortiz admits the positive aspect of transculturation, I though he emphasized quite more the dark and difficult side of Cuban cultural intercrossings.

Antonio Cornejo Polar’s article concerns heterogeneous litterature and the concept of heterogeneity. I think he explains that contrary to the concept of national litterature, one has to understand that this so-called homogeneity is actually challenged by regional and global categories. Indigenismo is described as one of these heterogeneous litteratures reflecting the diversity of Andean societies. Indigenismo is heterogeneous because it is produced within a sociocultural structure that is different from the one indigenous belong to. He shows not only how indigenismo has been influenced by Western standards, but also that it is mainly the discourse of middle-class activists that ‘internalized’ the interests of indigenous. Polar explains that ‘instead of imagining an impossible homogeneity’ (as national ideology does), indigenismo realizes a sort of materialization of Latin American heterogeneity. Thus I understood that heterogeneous litterature were a representation of the Latin American reality of social fragmentation due to history. Indeed, Polar sees his concept of heterogeneity as including a notion of persistant conflict and contradictions whereas transculturation or mestizaje refer to the resolution of originating antagonisms into a synthesis. Heterogeneity is supposed to help understand how multiplicity within a whole social structure generates conflicts. He speaks of a ‘contradictory totality’.

Millington’s article, although complex as well, helps clarify some points. He also assumes that transculturation is a more neutral and peaceful term. Generally speaking he shares Ortiz’s point of view about his concept of transculturation and its application to Cuba. He explains that these processes refered to as transculturals are unique to Latin America. However, I am not quite sure he shares Polar’s point of view given that he ends his essay by defining transculturation as a search for resistance to local and international pressure since the emergence of Latin American new nation-states. If true, transculturation also includes conflictiveness.

I found very interesting the passage where he questions the efficiency of ‘neoculturation’ in Latin America saying that this search for a cultural identity needs to be more than a reaction/opposition to dominant forces. I found that these remarks were really interesting and relevant. His point is that the understanding and development of such concepts as transculturation, heterogeneity, hybridity and others are necessary in order to define ’emancipatory spaces’ for Latin America. I have to say he succeeded at cheering me up with this idea, after I struggled to understand these concepts that are all so close to each other!

In Cuba Counterpoint by Fernando Ortiz I found it interesting to read the difference between acculturation and transculturation. Acculturation in Ortiz’s point of view, does not describe the history and culture of Cuba as well as transculturation. Just to be clear between the two I went to look on to dictionary.com and here is what I found : Acculturation is the process of adopting cultural traits from another cultural group, whereas transculturation is the cultural change induced by foreign cultures.

What Ortiz argues is that the real history of Cuba is best described using the term transculturation. The land and the people have not simply adopted each others traits, but have readjusted to each others cultures in a what Ortiz calls a “new syncretism of cultures.” (On a personal note, I didn’t know that the natives in Cuba, like in Haiti, were wiped out by the European colonist. I find that interesting because it makes me wonder what sort of influences they would have on Cuba’s contemporary popular culture.) Emphasized in this text is that what is contemporary Cuban culture is in a continuous process since the interactions between the paleolithic and neolithic natives to the Spanish colonist and subsequent African slaves and immigration.

Antonia Cornejo Polar takes a critical examination on the various types of literature by specifically classifying heterogenous and homogenous literature according to the processes of their production and consumption. The aim of this paper I believe was to provide a critical examination between these two distinctions, but I don’t really understand the purpose. Literature in Latin America encompasses a wide range of genres or “categories”, but what I think Polar wanted to emphasize is that often these texts are heterogenous, meaning that they are a created through a complexities and conflicting circumstances from its production to its “consumption”. I admit that although this article contained lots of interesting substance,I believe I may have misunderstood parts of it as I frequently consulted the dictionary close by. But one thing caught my curiousity was when Polar explained the way in which middle class mestizos, through their publication of indigenista literature, conformed to a heterogenous dimension in such that they took on the interests of the indigenous when in fact most indigenista literature excluded these very people. This would be interesting to elaborate more in class through discussion.

In Transculuration, I believe what Millington was trying to argue was for more of a reflection upon the usage of the term transculturation. Millington discussed and analyzed Ortiz’s text as he drew upon it various criticisms associated with it. I found this article interesting as it went more into depth whereas I found Ortiz’s definition of transculturation a bit simplified. All in all the term transculturation seems very debatable but I liked what Millington said in his conclusion: ” Such critical analysis may not in itself change the world but it can further understanding of what is happening in it”.

The first reading was by Fernando Ortiz. I liked how he explained that transculturation encompasses more processes involved in the evolution of cultures, in this case Cuban culture. I liked how he explained how the white people and the people of colour arrived to Cuba. I think that those distinctions are important when trying to understand the reactions of the different groups of people that leaded to the formation of the Cuban culture.
In the second article by Antonio Cornejo I understood that he was trying to point out that Latin American literatures should be understood in the basis of its own and in the basis of other literatures. I think that because sometimes when Latin American literature is compared to European some critics say that it is just a copy and at some point I think it has some aspects of the European literature but at the same time has new aspects, but there is not a clear cut because the process of mixing is quite complex just as the racial mixing. I think that Cornejo also wrote that through literature people from Latin America can try to understand themselves and the dynamics of the culture. When he writes about Chronicles he says that the author always compares things of the “new world” to things that already known, so all the Chronicles have to have a reference point. For Indigenismo he writes that it is not called Indigenous literature because it is not written by Indigenous people but for middle-class, radical people that see the marginalization of Indigenous people. I think it would be even better if Indigenous people could have their own voice to represent themselves.
I enjoyed reading the last article also because even though he points out the flaws of Ortiz he also recognizes the good parts of Ortiz´s argument. Mark Millington writes that the word transculturation is some kind of teleology that gives the people of Latin America a sense of an identity within the different “national-bodies” of the region. I liked also how he connects the meaning of the transculutration with the past colonial legacies and with the present globalization. After reading that article I felt that as the world changes and as we face new challenges, we (human beings) need explanations so that is why words such as transculturation become so meaningful.