Indigenism, like many other current ideological movements, is the son of 68, and has to do, above all, with Ibero-America more than with another continent. In other words, indigenism is an ideology linked, to a large extent, to the made american.
From Montesinos a Houses, the “fight for justice in America” had its most important spokespersons in the regular church (Montesinos and Las Casas, both Dominican), but they were always moved by a perspective integrationist, and no conservationist O reservist.
The protectors of Indians wanted evangelical law to spread in America. The aim, in the end, was to introduce the American population, until that moment completely ignorant (unfaithful) of the Christian message, into the dogmatic circle of Christian salvation. The aim was for the indigenous population to also have the possibility of reaching the parousia of looking God face to face for eternity.
For his part, and contrary to what was said by Diaz Ayuso In this regard, indigenism is not communism either. Communism, again, is integrationist. And, in this case, it tries to put the American population in the dogmatic circle of the Observed through the communist parties (more or less with the same functions as the Church), seeking the integration of the indigenous in class organizations to achieve the parousia of the socialist state.
It is not communism, then, a conservationism. The indigenous would have to stop being indigenous to join the revolutionary parties, in the same way that they cease to be indigenous when they join, as baptized, the Christian city of God.
The sixties, however, is not integrationist, but reservist, and the ideology that maintains it is the indianismo, son of multicultural relativism, which has its main ideologues in cultural anthropology and structuralism. Its formula could be summed up in the famous motto that “all cultures are equal.” It is about indigenous societies remaining as such, in a kind of eternal stationary state, in total harmony with the nature that surrounds these forms of life. ecological or “eotécnicas”, to put it with Mumford).
1492 and the American conquest, and this meshes with what the Pope said recently, represents what the then young anthropologist Robert Jaulin He called it “ethnocide”, in such a way that now, as victims of such a process, Indianism claims the preservation of what remains indigenous in America after the plunder, opposing both the Church and revolutionary Marxism (both, I insist, integrationists).
The (perhaps most important) milestone in the ideological crystallization of this indigenous movement did not take place in Moscow, not in Beijing, not even in Rome. He had it in Seville, the capital that was the share of Spain in the Indies. Of the 1st Ibero-American Symposium on Indigenous Studies, held in the Andalusian capital in 1987, came out the document, let’s say, founding of indigenismo, Indigenist Declaration of Seville (December 5, 1987). And it fixes, in six points, the fundamental lines of this ideology, which has nothing to do with communism.
It is about the recognition in America of “the right to economic, political and cultural self-determination of each people.” A right that was violated, says the statement, starting in 1492.
Follow the topics that interest you