in defence of guaman poma and a critique of individual agency
I do not intend to diminish the cultural impact of Guaman Poma’s New Chronicle and Good Government, but I must say that the notion that an minority would suscribe and advocate to the colonial ideologies does nothing but prove the existence of internalized racism. To me, this text does little to challenge my notions of indigenity, perhaps because who am I to have a notion of indigentiy? Whomever is indigenous is who the indigenous peoples accept, and without any knowledge of how the Yarowilcas actually viewed Guaman Poma, we will never know where he falls into the spectrum of Indigenous-Colonizer, nor how to view his actions.
That being said, I deeply resist the idea that Guaman Poma himself was a colonizer who colonized his own people because it is premised on a heavy western assumption of being a completely free agent. The colonized subject, the slave in the master-slave dialectic, the doubly-free proletariat, I could name countless philosphers whos stress that the oppressed person does not truly have a choice in the matter. And I am heavily skeptical that Guaman Poma, even as Yarowilca royalty, had the free will of a rich white individual colonizer.
I find much frustration with how much we look to individuals as symbols for terrible events, as if Hitler was the only driving force behind the Holoucaust (Weber literally predicted it would happen based off of the preexisting anti-semitism) or as if Trump’s election wasn’t built off of years of pent of white supremacy heightened by a divisive political system. Likewise, especially in consideration that Indigeneity tends to encompass interdependent collectivist ideologies, I doubt that Guaman Poma’s actions were truly colonial.
When I read New Chronicle and Good Government, I don’t feel an unmaking of what I know as indigenous or colonial, rather, I see a perfect representation of a systemically dominated subject seeking survival in an instituion that seeks their erasure. Survival in its pure connotation dictates animalism, in contrast to the ration and agency that the west has placed on an individual human (of course a defintion of humanity reducible to rational agency is problematic in itself, but that here is not the point). For if Guaman Poma is a single rabbit among a pack of wolves, did he really become to wolf by leading them to the rest of the rabbits to survive? If the wolves convinced him that all rabbits are inferior and he chose to put wolf costumes on the other rabbits for eternity, does that really make Guaman Poma a wolf?
When I was in high school, I tried my best to discard all elements of my Asain identity to fit in with white students, which involved reinfocing negative stereotypes and losing much of my culture, and I could only accomplish that as a person of privilige within my community. The expereince of harming my community for my own survival perhaps makes me a bad community member but doesn’t make less Asain and it certainly didn’t make me white. If anything, the experience of being so concious of my othered identity, the recogniton of my own status makes me more Asain, for it is the constant reaffirming of the racial relation.
Likewise, while Guaman Poma does nothing to affirm what it means to be indigenous or colonial, his survival within his system that required the assimilation of his own people, or even more extreme, the assimilation of his people for their physical surival, doesn’t complicate the line between the oppressor and subjugated, but actually clears it.
Again, I want to reiterate my first paragraph, only the Indigenous define who is Indigenous. Hence, perhaps the Indigenous do not claim Guaman Poma, in which case, would still strengthen my point as we can analyze him exactly how you would one of those racist anthropologists.
I’m not a huge fan of totalizing viewpoints or binaries, but I, especially coming from a collectivist community myself, truly believe that Guaman Poma can only be analyzed from the prexisting frameworks of community, otherwise we impose our own landless, untethered views onto him as an individual and repeat cycles of false universalism.
From a somone who is nothing but everyone before and around them and acts through everyone before and around them
Hi Annie, I agree with your views and empathize with how challenging it can be to understand Guaman Poma's motivations in today's socio-political climate. Your insights into internalized racism and the complexities of indigenous identity are deep. To me, Guaman Poma’s actions reflect a subconscious survival strategy within a colonial system rather than a true embracement of colonial ideologies. Your personal experiences and historical context offer a nuanced perspective, emphasizing that only the Indigenous can define indigeneity. This recognition of collective identity over individual actions helps clarify the complex dynamics at play in Guaman Poma's narrative. Thank you for sharing you experience!
Hi Annie,
Thank you for sharing your insights and experiences in relation to Guaman Poma's text in this impactful post! Your lived experiences are so powerful in informing your understanding of what survival means within an institution that actively works to delegitimize and silence your identity and your voice. Growing up in a culture that values the individual and individual agency above all else, it can be difficult to see the necessity of understanding individual action through the community and the collective. I don't know how I feel about the idea of free will, but I do think that our decisions are very much impacted by the environment and the system that we exist within. Rather than us outsiders imposing the label of "Indigenous" and what it entails onto a group of people, who also may not feel they share this label with other groups placed under it, I agree that our definition of Indigeneity should come from Indigenous peoples themselves. Though this may not work logically, it seems to have worked fine in real life, though I am no philosopher (I'm not getting into real vs. unreal here).
Much love,
Cissy <3