To be honest, economics is neither my area of expertise or area of interest. That being said, Mariategui does a good job of laying out the economic structurings of Peru in a readable and straightforward way. In relation to indigeneity, his main point in Essays on Peruvian Reality is that “the problem of the Indian” can only be solved by land reform. He also makes the argument that “the oldest and most obvious mistake is, unquestionably, that of reducing the protection of the Indian to an ordinary administrative manner… wise and detailed ordinances, worked out after conscientious study, have been quite useless”.
This made me think about what types of administrative reforms are common to todays (thinking Canadian here, would need to find out more about Peruvian) political sphere. Some things I thought of were status cards, special grants and scholarships, social assistance, and of course land acknowledgments. We’re all very familiar with the boiler plate UBC paragraph that gets delivered at the beginning of most sponsored events. While I’m sure it’s well-intentioned, it often feels performative. Yes, we are acknowledging the rights of the land, but after that, what?
Mariateguis argument throughout the essays seems to highlight the land richness of Peru, and the subsequent mismanagement of the land by Spanish colonizers. He advocates for the Indians right to the land which under colonialism, was swallowed up by feudal latifundios. Could the use of indigenous land to build a university which enrolls mostly non-indigenous students constitute an educational appropriation of land in the same vein that the Spanish colonizers appropriated Indian lands for their own economic systems (systems which were markedly unsuccessful in Peru)?
I think the concept of land acknowledgments would enrage Mariategui. The words-without-action nature of the acknowledgment gives people an out from actual land reform, which Mariategui argues is the only solution.
3 replies on “Mariategui and Land”
“I think the concept of land acknowledgments would enrage Mariategui.”
Haha! I bet it would. His critique of Las Casas is in similar vein.
I do agree with you that most land acknowledgements at big/sponsored events are often boiler plate tasks to tick off one’s to-do list. And I agree with you that Mariategui would probably be enraged with those. However, I will say that at some events I’ve been to (usually smaller ones, that are POC, BIPOC, or queer led), I have had the privilege of hearing some really amazing and thoughtful land acknowledgement. Of which I believe Mariategui would probably be happy with! These land acknowledgements that differ from the norm usually entail a more open flow of discussion and thought, rather than a script. The good ones have really made me think differently on how I operate on Indigenous land, and how I might go forth and set my intentions.
In this way, I think (good) land acknowledgements do what reading Mariategui does–it gives us a different thought pattern, a different perspective (on economics or otherwise), and it gives us something to take into consideration when we live our lives on these Indigenous lands. This is perhaps the ‘after’ of what is intended. Again, I agree with you that land acknowledgements are not typically executed well, but when it is done well, it really does stay with you.
Thanks for your response Jasmine, I appreciate your insights into the text and your experiences as well. Even though there is surely room for improvement, I agree it’s a worthy pursuit and when executed properly hold a power to change the conversation.
If it wasn’t for the kind of thinking that land acknowledgments fall under, perhaps we wouldn’t even be on this trip…