de-indianization? what?

Before I start on my initial thoughts of de la Cadina’s “Indigenous Mestizos”, I want to disclaim that I’ve been needing 9+ hours of sleep recently and have not finished my second coffee. Hence reading the introduction for me was incredibly difficult and inaccessible despite quite of interesting, thought-provoking segments.

_

“DeIndianization is not the shedding of indigenous culture and subsequent "integrating" that Vargas Llosa envisioned as the solution to violence in Peru. Neither does it mean "assimilating," and thus disappearing culturally, as some anthropologists have presented it (Bonfil Batalla, 1996; Friedlander, 1975). Rather, it is through active de-Indianization that subaltern cuzquenos have redefined essentialist notions of culture.” (de la Cadena, p. 6)

I don’t even know where to start. The idea that “de-Indianization” is not assimilation nor integration is something so unintuitive to me. Yet the more I think about it the more I feel like I’m misunderstanding the definitions that de la Cadina’s association with each of the definitions. So here I interpret her work to try and better see if I understand what she means, though I’m unsure if it’s a good interpretation. 

What stands out to me is that the term “de-Indianization” uses the root of “Indian” rather than “Indigenous”. While this certainly could have been due to the political circumstance that de la Cadina was under, I also think that despite this “Indian” is more of a colonial name for a group of people rather than the self-identification that “Indigenous” tends to have. Hence, perhaps it is that de-Indianization “sheds” the colonial definitions of what it means to be Indian, so that there can be a cultural definition placed upon a group identity that is no longer associated with being morally inferior. 

I make this assumption because de la Cadina seems to criticize too strongly a linkage between culture and race.

“Many Peruvian male intellectuals (and a few very vocal women) offered a culturalist definition of race, which could include - though not necessarily -some biological features, randomly subordinated to the superior powers of morality.” (de la Cadena, p. 8)

However, I’m skeptical that de-Indianization is actually a form of empowerment, since it allowed Indigenous people to gain class mobility. Another thing I’m skeptical about is fully rejecting essentialist definitions of Indigeneity, (thanks Glen Coulthard for brainwashing me) in fear that it will end up delegitimizing their claims to land and equating their cultural position as a quirk in the multicultural melting pot. That’s another thought though. 

What I’m curious about is whether or not a shift from Indigeniety being determined by biological makeup to Indigeneity from being determined by class/education/neighbourhood is really a form of empowerment. Perhaps for individuals, it allowed easier survival, but wouldn’t that be at the cost of reaffirming colonial ideals of meritocracy and individualism? De la Cadina maybe sees it the same way but I’m confused as shit anyways. 

This is such a mess of ideas, but then it makes me think, how does one build the Indigenous cultural identity that is separate from race, separate from colonial values, yet integrates the reality of the economic situation and allows individuals to thrive? Is de-Indianization separate from the adoption of a different perspective as a race? After Indigenous peoples are no longer Indian, if they become proletariats is that not just a road to assimilation? Are we saying that all people are equally oppressed under colonial capitalism now?

Jon if you have any clarifications please be super nice. this was so hard.

Annie