|
A little of history History is written by those who win. And those who win try to erase the memory and ideas of those who are beaten. This was and is like this in the whole world. The nation-states in many parts of the planet were artificial creations, ideological apparatus to control finite geographical spaces. In the American case one observes that we can only talk of states dating back nearly 200 years. Frontiers were invented where they did not exist, symbols, emblems were invented, national anthems of states that were inhabited by nations who were deprived of their territory. And one wonders, what are 200 years in 30,000 years of history? Does our history start with the foundation of a city, or when independence was declared? These days in which many patriotic anniversaries were celebrated I understand why they are not celebrated as in the past, because there isn't that enthusiasm and those passionate speeches for the "fathers of the nation". Practically no one remembers in history that Tupaj Katari (Julián Apaza) and Tupaj Amaru (José Gabriel Condorcanqui) tried to break the ties with Spain and redeem the indigenous heritage that was slave labour to the Spanish and creoles. But it was the creoles that didn't give the necessary support for that uprising to be successful, those same creoles that carried forward their "own" independence project, forming an alliance with other creoles from another part of the continent. Because of this, this social group created Bolivia "to their own measure". It was dangerous to form an alliance with the natives because their portion of power in Colonial America would be questioned, so of course they preferred to be on the side of the Spanish, who were their fathers. But all this they do not tell in school, which is an ideological apparatus of the incipient state, be it Argentine, Bolivian or Turkish. Many of the things we see today as natural are not really so. The migrants are the historically defeated of a society that has no space for them. Many of those of us who read these lines, who are we descended from? From Melgarejo or Olańeta or from Zárate Vilca or Bartolina Sisa. When we review the annals of history and find an episode, it can help us understand on which side we are. Tomas Frías, Minister of War, wrote a report on the confrontation with about one thousand chiriguano natives, as if he had confronted a foreign country. He suggests the extermination of the chiriguano race. They murder and fusil ate the prisoners, and the rest, the children and women are awarded to the "karays" (neighbours). Civilisation had arrived. Going back to the Bolivian declaration of independence, there is a historical vision that observes: "of the 48 members of parliament concentrated in the Deliberating Assembly, all were white aristocratic creoles; there were no mestizos, and least of all natives. It is the usual doctors that were in the past staunch realists and in the process of creole emancipation through opportunism became sentimental and dishonest patriots". They point out that Simón Bolívar, by the decree of the 4th of July 1825 eliminated the title and authority of the caciques and established local authorities (governors, mayors) to exercise those functions. So commenced the privatisation of the ayllus into private properties and the indigenous lands passed to be part of the new republican owner, the indigenous contribution was constituted, denominated direct contribution, and personal services were apparently annulled, and other reforms that did not change the living conditions of the natives, and the complete subjugation of the totality of the indigenous population continued. Bolívar expected to bury the authorities inherited from the Tawantinsuyo: kurakas, mallkus, jilakatas, which had survived the Spanish reign. But Bolívar was from an aristocratic family and recognised his Spanish origin, was an admirer of Bonaparte and wanted to found "a monarchy of the small kind" in South America, ignoring the natives and Spaniards, placing himself as the Liberator or a sort of republican monarch. This same historical vision sustains: "In the face of the crimson of Spain and the flag, shield and anthem of Bolivia which represent colonialism, our wiphala is the symbol of the constant reaffirmation and the restoration of the Qollasuyu. The Wiphala is the symbolical unity, whose geometric and multi-colour composition perceives the communitarian system". So, in the face of the events that have taken place in the last few years in what today is called Bolivia, the majorities seek to settle accounts with history and demand that the Bolivian state represent their interests. The charge finds an elite that no longer knows what to do to avoid the inevitable.
|