Hello fellow Lima readers! I decided to focus on this one section of the Lima reader this week as it stood out to me as a representation of my basic level of understanding of the historical colonial/indigenous relationship. Please feel free to add any comments you have and let me know where I’ve gone wrong.
As I read through this section of the Lima Reader I found myself thinking that the inspector’s perspective on Lima vs. Cuzco which encapsulates Eurocentric and ethnocentric ideology, echoing the attitudes of European colonizers towards indigenous communities worldwide. His dismissive tone towards the Inca’s attempt to describe Lima highlights a sense of superiority, implying that only Europeans possess the authority to articulate the city’s intricacies. It is ironic that the intelligence that the Inca possessed, because it is different from his own, MUST be lacking, despite the ability of their community to thrive in a landscape that has unique challenges that the Spanish were unable to overcome.
Throughout the passage, the inspector compares Lima favorably to Cuzco, emphasizing European-influenced elements such as noble titles, military institutions, and European-style education. This comparison reflects a Eurocentric bias, where European norms and institutions are upheld as superior to indigenous ones. It disregards the richness of indigenous cultures and traditions, suggesting that indigenous societies must conform to European standards to be considered valuable or civilized. Being raised in a colonial-dominated society, I was brought up in viewing the world through a lens that valued science, order, and logic over ritual, symbolism, and tradition. While the former have their advantages (the efficiency of cities organized like a grid and evidenced based treatments), this does not mean that the latter are lacking in any way. Personally I think that there is still much that we don’t ‘know’ about the benefits of practices that are less scientifically studied—a problem that cannot be resolved if the only ways of knowing that we recognize are ones based in western ideology.
Moreover, the inspector’s emphasis on the superiority of European-descended Creoles over those from Spain reinforces ethnocentric hierarchies within colonial societies. By praising Creoles for their earlier and more permanent cultivation of the mind, he perpetuates the myth of European intellectual superiority while denigrating indigenous and Spanish cultures.
Sadly, the inspector’s perspective is not unique, but reflects broader colonial attitudes towards indigenous peoples. It reminds of historic beliefs in the United States and Canada, where European colonizers often viewed indigenous cultures as primitive or inferior, justifying their exploitation and assimilation. This mindset laid the foundation for harmful colonial practices that are still perpetuated today, such as forced assimilation in education, religion, and socialization practices.
Forced assimilation has sought to erase indigenous cultures and replace them with European ones, leading to the loss of indigenous languages, traditions, and ways of life. Indigenous communities have been pressured to abandon their connection to the land and their communal practices in favor of European norms and values.
Ultimately, the inspector’s views reflect the legacy of colonialism, where Eurocentric attitudes towards indigenous peoples served to justify their subjugation and marginalization. I believe recognizing and challenging these harmful perspectives is essential for decolonizing our understanding of history and promoting respect for indigenous cultures and rights. It requires acknowledging the richness and value of indigenous knowledge and traditions and working towards justice and reconciliation with indigenous communities.