Clare Sammells
Miguel Centellas
Maria Bruno
Sara Simon
Chris Exner
Kate McGurn Centellas
Claudine Vallières
Jonathan
Andres Vaughan
Donna YatesThe other predominant big event(s) (aside from swine flu) in La Paz right now center on bicentennial festivities.
This summer/winter is the bicentennial of cry for independence. La Paz is festooned with banners commemorating this anniversary and there are on-going cultural events to celebrate. There have been extensive building and clean up projects in the name of the bicentennial – including the installation of more playgrounds, public toilets, and other public services.
Yesterday the Prado was closed to traffic most of the day, as it is most Sundays. As we strolled up and down, we passed several performance stages. One was for guitar/traditional music, one was for young children performing in folkloric dances (the banner behind this one claimed that this was to preserve and valorize “authentic” culture), and one was for the Miss Cholita 2009/Bicentennial pageant .
Why is this notable? Well, we shouldn’t forget that independence was not fought in the name or interest of indigenous peoples (and indeed post-independence indigenous peoples often lost community rights and standing in the eyes of the state). That a prominent symbol of 200 years of independence (sort of) is someone who needs a certain command of local history, indigenous language, and dress is an important reminder of how things have changed.
However, this is also indicative of the Andean-centrism of the current constructions of “authentic” Bolivian identity (all the young folkloric dancers were performing morenadas, caporales, etc., in other words, dances viewed by many as representative of the Andes). To be fair, we *are* in La Paz, so that some relation between local (as in Altiplano/Dpto. of La Paz) expressions and current social symbology is to be expected. But for a Sunday festival proclaiming the liberation of *Bolivia* (not just La Paz) I was struck by this omission (I did not notice even a superficial reference to other regions).
Finally, in a discomfiting twist (to me), while the performances were occurring in the middle of the Prado right across from the Monje Campero was a gigantic Venezuelan flag + “information tent.” The flag itself dwarfed the Bolivian flags there – it was probably 20 feet long by 10 or more feet high. The tent was the largest of all of the activity tents and information booths on the Prado and occupied prime real estate in the center of all the activity. There were representatives of Venezuela handing out small Bolivian and Venezuelan flags, as well as pamphlets and information about Venezuelan aid programs and policies. The tent was packed with people every time we strolled by. It struck me as a rather transparent symbol of the current relationship between Venezuela and Bolivia and perhaps a (yet more asymmetrical) future relationship.
Filed under: History, Indigenous Peoples, International Connections, Nationalism, Politics, Regionalism
K8,
Don’t forget what happened last MAY 25th… The anniversary of the real 1st cry for liberty in South America, when Evo Morales and his “government” refused to go to Sucre and even denied there being anything to celebrate stating that the revolt in Sucre had been an “oligarch” happenning whereas the 16 de Julio one was a REAL uplifting of all bolivians.
Pablo’s point is interesting. Because arguably the Sucre insurrection was more important. Not just because it was first chronologically, but because it soon gained popular momentum going further than the criollo elite & lasted for decades (until San Martin’s “relief” expeditions broke through). That Sucre insurrection gave Bolivia Moto Mendez (a mestizo-campesino lower class revolutionary) and Juana Azarduy (a female mestizo war leader). The Sucre uprising spread and created various “republiquetas” (mini-republics), including at least two indigenous-led ones. These fought on from 1809-1825, w/ little assistance from Bolivar’s forces, which only arrived in Alto Peru after 1824. In fact, it was the La Paz criollo elite conservatives who turned on the more liberal republiquetas & used Bolivar’s forces to create a unitary republic w/ a succession of leaders who had actually fought *for* the crown.
It’s also worth noting that the events of 1809-1812 were only retrosoectively viewed as cries for indepedence, in the form of independent nation states. As in Quito in August,1809, the autonomist juntas were established in the name of and in fidelity to Fernando Septimo, and as claims to equality with peninsular kingdoms.
It was only after the restoration of Fernando and the abolition of the Cadiz Constitution that the movents in the Americas became about independent nation states. As such, the geographical reach of the early Juntas tended to revolve around Audiencia or Corregimiento units, units allied with regional power dynamics.
I think parezcoydigo has an important point here — the ideology of the nation-state was not dominant in the early 19th century, and many of the later-to-be-reinterpreted-as-independence movements of Latin America were seen as revolts against Napoleon-controlled Spain (the Spanish king having been sent into exile).
When Bolivia was finally formed as a nation-state, the reps from Santa Cruz delayed the process by going to Buenos Aires — they assumed they would be part of Argentina! Clearly these political lines were not clear, even to the actors at the time.
The larger point is that everyone today who tries to see clear-cut modern-type Bolivian nationalism in these historical moments has to do some “reinvention of history” if they want past events to lead neatly into modern political forms. Things were/are never really that neat. The debate about whether La Paz or Sucre are the “real” origin of the Bolivian state are not just arguments about the past, but about contemporary politics.
On a related note, I am very excited about the high level of this conversation! It’s wonderful to interact with others as interested in Bolivia as we are!
The question is not so much about which declaration of independence is the “real” first one or whatever. But Pablo pointed out the irony that Evo first downplayed the Sucre revolt as only a criollo revolt, but now embraces the La Paz one (which was also a criollo revolt).
The point is that this shows a preference for history “from La Paz” rather than history that can incorporate other important national historical events.
Hey Miguel – I don’t find this to be “ironic.” I think this is a process of the “reinvention of history” that happens in all nations. Of course Evo selectively chooses which historical events to honor; ALL politicians (and citizens) do this, in Bolivia and elsewhere.
The fact that you see both these events as “criollo revolts” is interesting, but yours (ours) is an academic analysis. Pres. Morales is not in the business of writing historical analysis. He is invoking history in the context of today’s Bolivian politics.
Yes, I agree this has to do with privileging Andean/La Paz history over that of other regions, but that takes place in a contemporary political situation that is highly divided by region. I’m sure you can see those connections as well as I can.
But that’s exactly what makes it ironic, Clare. Surely, you must notice that! Both the Sucre & La Paz events are similar (in terms of who launched them, their initial purpose, etc.). The only significant difference is that one is in La Paz the other in Sucre. Evo categorically repudiated the importance of the Sucre one because of the ethnic identity of its participants, and its limited (initial) goals. That he chose to honor a similar event that was based in La Paz is (to put it lightly) ironic.
I should add that, in fact, when Evo repudiated the Sucre event, he repudiated (en toto) the 1800s independence revolts because they did little (if anything) to erase the oppression of indigenous peoples. In fact, he argued that the entire idea of a bicentennial celebration was out of place, since his government was the first “true” revolution that brought freedom to all the country’s peoples. So to suddenly embrace the revolt led by Pedro Murillo (a paceño criollo) is, well, interesting. Perhaps it’s because Chavez wants to make a lot of hay about Bolivar’s role in the bicentennial for his own purpose.
Again, it’s only “ironic” if you think of Pres. Morales as a historian, rather than a politician. I’m not disputing your grasp of history here, merely pointing out the different uses to which history is put.
Wow, thanks to everyone for their careful and insightful responses! You’ve all eloquently pointed to some fascinating points. I think what is important here is precisely the reinvention of history to serve a (post)modern conception of what Bolivia is and should be. And, at least right now, that image is dominanted by Andean symbols. As I pointed out in the original post, some degree of this is expected. This is taking place in La Paz, after all. But after I wrote this post I kept noticing around the city other markers of the Bicentennial…and they are ALL focused on La Paz. For instance – and I hope to post about this more extensively later – yesterday we took Javi to Pollos Copacabana for lunch. We got him a kids’ meal with a special toy for the month of the Bicentennial. The toy was a puzzle with an image of a major tourist site in or near La Paz that little tourist pollitos are visiting, a little wind up car that goes around a track on the outside of the puzzle, and the logo of the bicentennial. The one from yesterday’s scene was of the tourist pollitos (pacenos?) biking down to Coroico. The other 3 in the series are visiting Tiwanaku (yes Clare, I am hoping that one comes out before we leave for you!), the Valle de la Luna, and Illimani. And these are supposed to commemorate *national* independence at chain restaurant. It seems there’s little effort put in to trying to synthesize diverse regional symbols and historical events into a national meta-narrative at this point.
I MUST HAVE PHOTOS OF THESE HAPPY MEALS.
Man, I wish I was there to collect those. Fascinating!! Please post something just about them!