A few days ago, during one of our classes in Cusco, I asked Jon whether there was some sort of resistance between the Indigenous peoples of this region to call themselves “Peruvian.” After all, the word “Peru” and the concept of a “Peruvian” as a whole only came about with the creation of states that colonization caused. It pleased me to see that Garcilaso de la Vega talked about the term “Peru” amongst many of the topics he discusses.
In his text, Garcilaso confirms what I believed to be true in the first place about the term “Peru.” He says that the Indigenous “do not use [the term Peru] because they had no generic name in their language to cover collectively the kingdoms and provinces that their native kings ruled over, such as Spain, Italy, or France, which include many provinces.” Garcilaso suggests that, since there is no significance in the grouping of a specific set of regions to the Indigenous, a word for that grouping does not need to exist in the first place. The fact that this word isn’t used by the Indigenous, therefore, can be considered an act of resistance. It is an act of resistance against the fact that the concept of the country of Peru needs to exist at all.
As Garcilaso describes, the term “Peru” is a misspelling and/or misidentification of another two words. Therefore, for a person who speaks the language of “Beru” and “Pelu,” to say the word ‘Peru” may mean to give in to those who lack knowledge on the subject. It may also mean to be overpowered or overruled as to what something means. For this to occur would be very unfortunate; particularly when an initial explanation for those meanings exists from long ago.
Just in general, it seems as if I have learned a little more about naming conventions since we got to Peru, and especially through this book in our time in Cusco and Pisac. My questions are: who should get to determine the name of a region? Does this answer change depending on whether a significant group that inhabits a region doesn’t recognize it? Similarly, what should make a group of places “significant” enough so that they receive a name that groups them together?
One reply on “Garcilaso and Names”
“It is an act of resistance against the fact that the concept of the country of Peru needs to exist at all.” Of course, that seems like a possible reading to me. Another is that they have not even been considered “with their own voice” in the Nation project, as the Indigenous communities in Bolivia have been, where multiculturalism is recognized nowadays. It is not a simple question. But other Andean countries have faced specific forms of discrimination that have been resisted for centuries: I think it is possible for that knowledge to be shared and bear fruit (well, that’s my opinion, I don’t know Jon’s).