The colonial nation-state in the Indianism of Fausto Reinaga
In the preceding lines it was found that Western modernity produced the state-state, for this reason we can assert that this institution is the most important representation of European modernity in terms of political, legal and social, human, human organization organization.
While Reinaga is an enemy of the West and therefore of Western modernity, the thesis is that it is one of the defenders of colonial state-nation within Indianist thinking. However, "… it is important to observe that, in a large number of situations, the initial rejection comes from certain elites, generally those that are familiar with the metropolis culture they reject". Consequently, Fausto Reinaga, rejects and fights against the West from its same modern and western formation. Western jurience and thinking about the nation-state, are contrasts that reflect its European modernism. So the anti-Cidental Indianist intellectual is crossed by modernity, by colonialism and western nation-state is its maximum aspiration, because as we said, he himself is the result of western illustration and that is modernity of the West.
Thus proposed on Reinaga, a western modernity, this sends (necessarily) to another modernity. Because, on modernity, it should be noted, and it is the case of Bolivia that this has another component, that of the modernity that makes it complex and incomprehensible. For this reason, Partha argues that our modernity is the one of once colonized, and is one of why the tissues of anti-western discourse are deeply ambiguous;And Reinaga is the clear example of this thesis. Because after affirming "that in Bolivia there is the Bolivian nation and the nation-nation imposed by the white-mestizos, it concludes that this is fiction and does not really exist", but it ends up applying the colonial. Here there is contradiction when postulates (colonial institution) what questions. Therefore, it is immersed in analyzing the origin and mode of formation of the nation-state, and then propose as a new alternative to the same Western colonial or modernist institution.
It should be noted that, as for the state-state, Fausto Reinaga, performs an interesting political analysis;starting from the national problem: the nation, the state, etc., in which he interrogates whether Bolivia has managed to constitute the nation or not. He maintains that from 1825 to 1970 the mestizo white cholaje has failed to make Bolivia a nation, less consider the national problem or have questioned whether Bolivia is a nation. And sentence that intellectuals, questioned, had taken for granted that Bolivia is a European -style nation.
The answer to his questions and analysis is that “the Indian of 1810 and 1970 is a nation;And the white-mestizo cholaje, is another nation ". That is, it identifies two nations and what corresponds, according to him, is that “the Indian Revolution must join in flesh and soul, organically and psychologically to both nations, overcoming the juxtaposition of the mestizo nation on the Indian nation, in a singlenation and in a single Bolivia ". Reinaga’s thesis and proposal is to project the unique nation in the convergence of the Bolivian state-nation, through the Indian Revolution, but it is known that every revolution, in terms of Taylor (2014), is another product of modernityas a direct access form, without mediation and previous processes, to power.
As for the state-state, Reinaga, identifies two types of organization and constitution and comparatively analyze each of them, and then consider a new one and that responds to the past, that is, to the Tawantinsuyu, so that it is applied to the country.
The first form is the European and this is: “The State in the‘ Nation of the West ’arises spontaneously [natural]… it is the consequence of the nation;The effect of the cause ". While the second is the Afro-Asian, in which the State is the cause of the nation. It is the state that forms the nation. Consequently, we would have the following formulas: Europe, nation-state, first is the nation and it unfolds in the state;Second, Afro-Asian, state-state, it is the state that determines it to the nation. About the last, this formula is due to the late independence of these countries. Which would verify that in the formation of the nation-state, in the Afro-Asian countries that were occupied, invaded and colonized, but then independent, are constituted in nation states;However, colonial type in which the State defines the nation and not the nation to the State. Is this operation possible in a colonized country? Of course, where a minority is imposed from the State to the majority;As Reinaga himself denounces.
And what is the formula raised for Bolivia from Reinaga? It should be clarified that in political theoretical analysis, in terms of Tawantinsuyu, it only prioritizes the nation and not to the nation-state. He argues that "Marxist or anti-marxist white-meteal chollaje of Indoamerica may never agree and less build the nation-state in this continent". He maintains that the only ones who are going to free their nation-state and constitute the Bolivian nation-state are the Indians.
The Bolivian has a meaning and that is how the white-mestizos understand, to which so much accuses them of destroying the homeland. That sense and existence is only based on its origin and constitution. That Constitution is determined by white and not by the Indian. In addition, this determination and projection (desire) is not subject to the Indian. Therefore, the unique nation will be white, but neither, not an indianized target but a Europe.
It is in those arguments that it is possible to make differentiation between the colonial and the anticolonial, in the same arguments of Reinaga. He argues that the European model is by nature nation-state, but for contradicting (or for lack of interpretation) and for not copying (that would be colonial) suggests that it is similar to that of Asians and Africans, in other words that it is a state-nation.
The described approach is the collapse of the anticolonial of Reinaga, because it confuses two things. First, those of Europe in its constitution and construction of the states, do not have the colonial component and problem. Second, the error consists in the elaboration of making or constituting the State, from the misinterpretation and confusion, thinking that the Bolivian State does not have to be under the formula of the nation-state, because this would be colonial. Therefore, the state-nation raises us.
The approach is problematic, because the nation-state is the result of the imposition, as he demonstrates from the colonial state and not from the nations. It is not an approach to the plurinational state. According to this theory, the Aymara, Quechua nations would disappear, etc., To converge in the unique nation, the Bolivian nation-state.
This proposal is colonial, because as observed and verified (in the same Reinaga), in Europe the nation became the State, and the anticolonial must necessarily go in that current. Since it is the "State that is subsume to the nation and not the other way around. Because it is the nations that define the State and not the State to the nations ”. Under this natural or spontaneous formula described by Reinaga, the right thing would be for us nation-state. And the nations are the Aymara, Quechua and Guaraní.
Because, when the nation is not crossed by colonialism. That is, in principle or theoretical rule, where there was no colonization, as well as Reinaga has argued that the State is a consequence of the nation, this necessarily becomes a nation-state, although its literal and formal translation is a state-nation. In this same line Taylor argues that while nations fight to become states, which is the same nation-state, states also create loyalties, that is, state-state;In our opinion, the one that has coherent application is the first, when it is intended to build the real-nation-state.
In sum, the Indianist thought of Reinaga, has been proposed to resume the past to overcome this. In that sense, it is intended to return to the past (in terms of Berman), because that past was better than the present colonial, that means moving and progressing;And modernity is always to progress or improve. That is essential for modernity. So that, return to the past of the Kullasuyu and reactualize it is to progress. That Indianist search and speech is totally modernist.
On the other hand, it should be noted that the Indianist discourse of Reinaga, is marked by its radical anti-westernism. It shows and confirms hate and anti-western war against colonial institutions and, of course, against European modernity. However, in the present work it has been shown that this anti-westernism has modern and rather colonial biases;typical of Western modernism. Therefore, he does not even try to build another modernity, in the Indianist stage.
Leave feedback