On the occasion of Columbus Day, not everything is said about indigenous people
por Elio Henríquez
A “revolutionary” action is claimed with clear demagogic purposes
They are not called Indians, firstly, because it is politically incorrect and because the term original settlers is more appropriate. But also because in the past Indian and dumb turned out to be synonyms. The absurd analogy was based on the episode of the swap of their gold works for knickknacks. But now, from their status of stupidity, they became models of nationality and Hispanic-American spirit.
The attribution that turns them into the essence of hemispheric sensibility is as arbitrary as the initial analogy, but it is a matter of demagogy in the interest of manipulators of events. The commemoration of the meeting of the Americas -Is it OK? Or perhaps any other effective name should be sought to expel Don Vespucio from the map?- has turned them into heroes of resistance to imperialism; somewhat similar to Independence heroes.
Was there actually indigenous resistance, as exclusively proposed under the new name of the historical event?
Absolutely, the endeavors of admirable warriors, such as Cauthemoc in Mexico and Guaicaipuro in Venezuela, were notable. Several heads of the emerging nations raised the ax of war, even after the establishment of viceroyalties, and were brutally repelled. However, the phenomenon of collaboration also recurred, more frequently than what the "revolutionary" historiography would like to acknowledge. Since the white man's harquebus could free them from the bloody domination imposed by neighbors, many original peoples joined efforts with cuirassiers. Or they simply wished to get along with the newcomers. Thanks to a policy carefully crafted by the Crown, the white conqueror and the conquered indigenous people formed an alliance. Based on the favors granted to collaborators, a steady cooperation was established and helped not only to excel Spain's administration over foreign powers, but also in the face of insurgents as from the second half of the 18th century.
Against exploiters
In this way, we come closer to the ardent log of the indigenous reaction to independence movements, a transcendent mess in the speech of the "good savage." Spokespersons of nowadays' widespread revolutions do not even touch on the subject in passing -for them, it is rather an anathema. However, any fairly informed individual is aware of the aristocracies' predicament in the face of the reaction of native people when the Hispanic empire disappeared. Indians did not put their Phrygian bonnets or hoist the flags of emerging republics. On the contrary, they risked their lives for the King, considered a father sent by God. Nobody can deny that their behavior was influenced by religious preaches which linked the Crown with salvation of the soul. However, apparently, from the bottom of their hearts, they would rather have the monarch's dominance instead of the yoke imposed by native people, who had been their exploiters since ancient times.
Followers of Bolívar, San Martín, Santander and Iturbe unsuccessfully tried to do a fine jigsaw in the face of the Indians who cried out for Fernando VII. We also face an obstacle to trendy versions, the framers of which do not know what to do with the characters they try to turn into paradigms; characters who were stung by enmity towards the founders of the homelands of the Americas. Perhaps those crafty, copper-colored men anticipated that the first trials of republic would take them to a cliff. The leaders of such republics evicted them from the "reductions" established in the colony; showed them the coat of the laws of the Catholic culture; cheated them and never gave ownership of rural plots of land and made them pay taxes.
There is a lot to say about such a handy topic. However, perhaps the above statements will help to warn against a fuzzy trick cascaded by some spokespersons who pretend to be redeemers. Perhaps nobody is amenable to redemption from a unilateral chair intended to settle -with half-truths, stereotypes, simplicities- the accounts with the past. Such a past refers to an evolution, the features of which, assessed with candor, mirror a characteristic, collective personality that has managed to find its place in society and will do it again more properly, without doubtful or suspicious crutches. Unfortunately, there are still some people willing to swap gold for knickknacks.
Translated by Conchita Delgado
