Thank you so much for this perspective Annie! Your ability to engage with this context in combination with your personal experiences and understanding in the Yukon is really fascinating, and unique and important. Your points around land title is particularly interesting. That nomadic communities who do not imprint a noticeable (invasive) impact would face difficulties in the conventional means of answering the ask "who's land" ? But what I'm feeling from what you share is about the inward and outward aspects of claim. Identifying with land (inherent relations such as spiritual recognition and relational offering) or exemplifying participation (visible practices such as agriculture or even industrial ownership/production). Which matters more? In terms economy, the abstract and material economic system called capitalism, the inward and personal are mostly unbeknown... is this something Mariategui is mentioning in a call to communalism and shared responsibility of labour? ~~ the labour of loving land : , )
Mariategui seems to have a lot going on beyond a historical account. It's nice to get a plausible anti-colonial perspective. You claim that Mariategui is actually quite radical, which I think is interesting. I'm naturally inclined to think that a socioeconomic analysis is where things start, and then accounts subsequently become more radical when they incorporate increasingly abstract criticisms beyond that. But I think you're onto something. The economic realm relates to the other intersectional features of a society, but I share the intuition that accomplishing a Marxist agenda doesn't necessarily make all the non-economic issues go away, which I think is the radical piece you identify (if I'm understanding you correctly).
Hi Gabo! I don't think Mariategui is that particularly radical in todays terms, but I think because the methodology of using socieconomy analysis can be quite limiting when it comes to instiutional interdependence(in my experience in polisci at least) so I find it refreshing that his take is so ahead of his times and so land-centric. While anthropologists might not bat an eye, it's very impressive to me!
Thank you so much for this perspective Annie! Your ability to engage with this context in combination with your personal experiences and understanding in the Yukon is really fascinating, and unique and important. Your points around land title is particularly interesting. That nomadic communities who do not imprint a noticeable (invasive) impact would face difficulties in the conventional means of answering the ask "who's land" ? But what I'm feeling from what you share is about the inward and outward aspects of claim. Identifying with land (inherent relations such as spiritual recognition and relational offering) or exemplifying participation (visible practices such as agriculture or even industrial ownership/production). Which matters more? In terms economy, the abstract and material economic system called capitalism, the inward and personal are mostly unbeknown... is this something Mariategui is mentioning in a call to communalism and shared responsibility of labour? ~~ the labour of loving land : , )
Hi Annie,
Mariategui seems to have a lot going on beyond a historical account. It's nice to get a plausible anti-colonial perspective. You claim that Mariategui is actually quite radical, which I think is interesting. I'm naturally inclined to think that a socioeconomic analysis is where things start, and then accounts subsequently become more radical when they incorporate increasingly abstract criticisms beyond that. But I think you're onto something. The economic realm relates to the other intersectional features of a society, but I share the intuition that accomplishing a Marxist agenda doesn't necessarily make all the non-economic issues go away, which I think is the radical piece you identify (if I'm understanding you correctly).
Gabriel
Hi Gabo! I don't think Mariategui is that particularly radical in todays terms, but I think because the methodology of using socieconomy analysis can be quite limiting when it comes to instiutional interdependence(in my experience in polisci at least) so I find it refreshing that his take is so ahead of his times and so land-centric. While anthropologists might not bat an eye, it's very impressive to me!