• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
  • Home
  • About
    • Editorial Staff
      • Bryan Strawser, Editor in Chief, Strife
      • Dr Anna B. Plunkett, Founder, Women in Writing
      • Strife Journal Editors
      • Strife Blog Editors
      • Strife Communications Team
      • Senior Editors
      • Series Editors
      • Copy Editors
      • Strife Writing Fellows
      • Commissioning Editors
      • War Studies @ 60 Project Team
      • Web Team
    • Publication Ethics
    • Open Access Statement
  • Archive
  • Series
  • Strife Journal
  • Strife Policy Papers
    • Strife Policy Papers: Submission Guidelines
    • Vol 1, Issue 1 (June 2022): Perils in Plain Sight
  • Contact us
  • Submit to Strife!

Strife

The Academic Blog of the Department of War Studies, King's College London

  • Announcements
  • Articles
  • Book Reviews
  • Call for Papers
  • Features
  • Interviews
  • Strife Policy Papers
    • Strife Policy Papers: Submission Guidelines
    • Vol 1, Issue 1 (June 2022): Perils in Plain Sight
You are here: Home / Archives for Monuments

Monuments

Series on Memory, History and Power: Indigenous Uruguay – monuments, histories and memories

July 8, 2021 by Henrique Gasperin

This article is a part of our Series on Memory, History, and Power.  Read the Series Introduction here.


At least since 1925 Uruguay has officially proclaimed itself a country on whose territory no indigenous peoples inhabit. A commemorative book written to celebrate the nation’s hundredth anniversary reads that Uruguay is ‘the only nation of America that can make the categorical claim of having no single community that resembles its aboriginal population inside its territorial limits’, and that ‘it has been almost a century since the Uruguayan land has ended up in absolute possession of the European race and its descendants’[1]. The reference for indigenous extinction matches an infamous set of planned attacks undertaken by the presidency of Fructuoso Rivera from 1831 to 1834 with the explicit objective of ‘cleaning the countryside’ and getting rid of the ‘savage horde of Charrúas’[2], thus conceding to longstanding requests made by organized landholders[3]. Nowadays, Uruguay stands as one of the few Latin American countries that lacks legal frameworks to deal with indigenous peoples. How and why is that so? A closer look into the nation’s historical formations might give us some clues.

By the late 1870s, virtually no land remained privately unclaimed in Uruguay. With national modernizing polices, large cattle-ranching properties (estancias ganaderas) were fenced and consolidated as the dominant model of land tenure and wealth accumulation, dividing the landscapes of the countryside in a grid-like diagram[4]. These arrangements came at a time when the state was finally managing to acquire some degree of territorial stability under its (loose) coercive apparatus. Consolidating sovereignty and forging national citizenship required, however, more than the monopoly of violence. It demanded the creation of modern histories and myths capable of granting symbolic legitimacy to a political community whose (also loose) material foundations had emerged from coordinated ethnocide and widespread land enclosure. Commonly referred as a country of late colonisation, the activities undertaken both by Iberian empires and national elites in what is now Uruguay resulted less in massive native labour exploitation (as it was the case for densely populated regions such as Mesoamerica and the Andes) than on their systematic displacement and extermination to make room for European/white settlement, fostered by massive migratory waves in the late XIX century. It is sustained that Uruguay accounts for a case of settler-colonialism.

Similar to other American nation-states, discourses about native subjects and images have played a central role in the construction of the Uruguayan post-colonial nationality. The Charrúas, once considered the biggest threat against local landlords, were romantically refashioned as ideal ‘national Indians’[5]. Through a positive revaluation of their primitive bravery under proto-national framings, it was said that they ‘held the destiny of the Uruguayans in their hands’[6]. The cruel irony of this story is that what allowed them to move from enemies to cultural forbearers was an ideology of temporal discontinuity, one that can only find authentic (national) indigenous subjects in an unattainable and long-gone past. As prominent artists and writers, such as Eduardo Acevedo Díaz, Francisco Bauzá and Juan Zorilla de San Martín, mythologized indigenous pasts, many nationalistic-inspired archaeologists and historians biologized indigeneity and divorced it from modernity, rendering invisible almost all histories of native descendants and overlooking Indigenous social persistence.

Fig. 1 – Monumento a El Entrevero, 2011 | Photo by Andrés Franchi via Wiki Commons

The prevalence of such a discursive construction is observable in distinct sites throughout the country. It is the case of the imposing Monumento a El Entrevero, sculpted by José Belloni and inaugurated in 1967 at the Plaza Fabini, a square located in a noble area of Montevideo. Depicting a ‘total war’ image, where it is impossible to distinguish sides, it is officially said to represent ‘the evocation of the first battles of the motherland by Indians and gauchos’. The tribute to an ancient Hobbesian-like ‘state of nature’ legitimizes the establishment of the Uruguayan state as a historical necessity for an unruly land – a teleology that is either only possible with and a direct consequence of the extinction of ‘its’ native inhabitants. The only Indigenous subject that fits within this story, as displayed in the monument, is a male, conflict-prone and doomed-to-death subject, as the national canon cannot make sense of any kind of hybridism or mestizaje between the European/white citizen and the native, whose extinction is a sine qua non condition for the birth of the nation. A similar logic is found in the (in)famous Monumento a los últimos charrúas, sculpted by Edmundo Prati, Gervasio Muñoz and Enrique Lussich, inaugurated in 1938 at the Prado park in Montevideo, which celebrates the abhorrent journey of four native captives taken to Paris to be publicly exposed as the ‘last (authentic) Charrúas’ in 1834.

Fig. 2 – Monumento a los Últimos Charrúas, 2013 | Photo by Eva Jade via Wiki Commons

Other sites where such a temporal-racial rupture is pointedly symbolized are museums. Indigenous-related exhibitions hardly ever share the same spaces and rooms with those that celebrate the history of the nation-state, its republican institutions or illustrious figures. Although important archaeological advancements have been fiercely challenging the stereotypical imagery of ancient proto-national Charrúa dominance in the region, which has staged complex interethnic indigenous relations[7], most national museums lack major exhibitions on the many ways indigenous histories intertwined with the formation of the Uruguayan state[8] and its contemporary society. A passage found in an article displayed in the Museo Indígena in Colonia del Sacramento explicitly reads that ‘[Indians] have made no influence at all in the general culture of the country’.[9]

The Uruguayan nationality shares a double-edged relationship with indigenous subjects: on the one hand, it grows on top of their alleged extinction; on the other, its legitimacy as an American nation is indebted to their pre-historical ‘symbolical heritage’. Hence, how much of a threat could contemporary groups claiming an indigenous identity pose to the foundational European/white pillars of the nation? Would they be ‘integrated’ under a renewed framework for national citizenship? Those are, perhaps, the most important questions one has to ask after becoming aware of the growing claims being made by organized descendants of Charrúa and other indigenous peoples in Río de la Plata region, who are collectively reconstructing and vocalizing previously silenced memories.[10] If  a continental trend follows, one can be sure that disputes over monuments, museums and national sites of patrimonial interest will provide the closest we can get as an answer.

[1] Perfecto López Campaña, El Libro del Centenario (Montevideo: Agencia de Publicidad Capurro, 1925), p. 43.

[2] Quart.l General Salsipuedes, Abril 15 de 1831, in Eduardo Acosta y Lara. La Guerra de los Charrúas, período patrio (Montevideo: Linardi y Risso, 1989), v. II.

[3] Adriana Dávila and Andrés Azpiroz, Indios, cautivos y renegados en la frontera: los blandengues y la fundación de Belén, 1800-1801 (Montevideo: Ediciones Cruz del Sur, 2015) and Acosta y Lara, La Guerra.

[4] José Pedro Barrán and Benjamin Naum, Historia rural del Uruguay moderno, vol. 1, 1851-1885 (Montevideo: Editora Banda Oriental, 1967); Samuel Brandt, The Makings of Marginality: Land use intensification and the diffusion of rural poverty in eighteenth and nineteenth century Uruguay, (M.A. Thesis, University of California, 2019). It is estimated that dozens of thousands of cattle-rounding jobs, which are commonly associated with the figure of the “gaucho”, became pretty much worthless with the advent of wiring.

[5] Gustavo Verdesio, “La mudable suerte del amerindio en el imaginario uruguayo: su lugar en las narrativas de la nación de los siglos XIX y XX y su relación con los saberes expertos,” Araucaria, n. 14 (2005): 161-195; Jeffrey Erbig Jr. and Sergio Latini, “Across Archival Limits: Colonial Records, Changing Ethnonyms, and Geographies of Knowledge,” Ethnohistory 66, n. 2 (2019): 249-273; Carolina Laurino, La construcción de la identidad uruguaya (Montevideo: Universidad Católica, 2001).

[6] Francisco Bauzá, Historia de la dominación española en el Uruguay 96, Tomo II (Biblioteca Artigas, colección Clásicos Uruguayos, 1965[1895]), 145.

[7] Diego Bracco, “Los guenoa minuanos misioneros,” Memória Americana, cuadernos de etnohistória 24, no. 1 (2016): 33-54; Sergio Latini, “Repensando la construcción de la Cuenca del Plata como espacio de frontera” in Fronteras, espacios de integración en las tierras bajas del sur de América, ed. Carina Lucaioli and Lidia Nacuzzi (Buenos Aires: Sociedad Argentina de Antropología, 2010): 69-99; Norberto Levinton, “Guaraníes y Charrúas: una frontera inclusivista-exclusivista,” Revista de História Regional 14, n. 1 (2009): 49-75.

[8] See Jeffrey Erbig Jr, Where Caciques and Mapmakers Met (Chapel Hill: The University of South Carolina Press, 2020).

[9] Such a sentence was said by notable Uruguayan anthropologist Renzo Pi Hugarte in a newspaper interview. As only selected pieces were shown in the museum, it is impossible to make a proper reference.

[10] Andrea Olivera, Devenir Charrúa en el Uruguay: Una etnografía junto con colectivos urbanos (Montevideo: Lucida Ediciones, 2016); Mariela Eva Rodríguez and Mónica Michelena, “Memorias Charrúas en Uruguay: reflexiones sobre reemergencia indígena desde una investigación colaborativa,” Abya Yala 2, n. 2 (2018): 181-210.

Filed Under: Blog Article, Feature, Series Tagged With: Charrúa, Henrique Gasperin, Monuments, Uruguay

Series on Memory, History and Power: Introduction

July 5, 2021 by Luciana Martinez

The fallen Columbus after a group led by American Indian Movement members tore it down in Minnesota, 2020 | Photo by Tony Webster, used under Creative Commons.

Over the last years, we have seen disputes over statues and monuments all over the world. Memorials dedicated to military achievements, war heroes, colonialists and slave traders have been at the centre of debates on the deconstruction of history and the ways some events and national groups have been inscribed in the public space.  In 2019, for example, we saw Santiago, the capital of Chile, being occupied by protesters waving the flag of the indigenous Mapuche people. One particular image went viral all around the world: in the photo, dozens of protesters climb a military monument in the centre of Santiago and at the top of the statue, a man raises the Mapuche’s flag, a people that has been under attack in Chile since the arrival of Spanish colonizers, in the 16th century. In South Africa, the campaign Rhodes Must Fall led to the removal of a statue in honour of British imperialist Cecil Rhodes at the University of Cape Town. The withdraw flared up a discussion regarding what to do with other monuments to Rhodes around the country. In 2020, we saw similar scenes being repeated throughout Europe, United States and Latin America, when statues of slave trader Edward Colston, Columbus, Belgian King Leopold II and Portuguese Jesuit missionary Father António Vieira, just to name a few, woke up either, at the bottom of a river, painted in red, headless or wearing signs saying: ‘decolonize’. Such movements intended to problematise what is remembered in the public sphere and how those monuments relate to the way we conceive a country’s history or the history of colonialism and slavery.

‘There is no document of civilisation which is not at the same time a document of barbarism’[i], writes Walter Benjamin on his 7th thesis on the philosophy of History. For some, statues such as those of Colston, Rhodes and Vieira are symbols of civilisation. For many others, they are memories of massacres and genocides, symbols of barbarism. Monuments as, for example, the Padrão dos Descobrimentos, built in the memory of the infant Henry the Navigator – considered the patron of the 16th century Portuguese colonial expansion – represent the memory of the victors, they anchor history the way power wants it seen. That is the reason why, if we take Benjamin’s critique of history as a guide, we need to deconstruct such monuments built by hegemonic historical narratives. And what we have been seeing over recent years throughout the world are precisely such moments of such deconstruction.

That is to say that the debate over monuments and statues should be considered under a broader scope of history, memory and dynamics of power intertwined in both phenomena. In a recent article in the French newspaper Le Libération, Paul B. Preciado described statues as ‘prosthesis of historic memory that remind us the lives “that matter”’. They inscribe on public space the bodies that deserve to be immortalized in stone and metal. ‘Public sculptures’, he writes, ‘do not represent the people, they build it: they depict a national pure body and determine an ideal of colonial and sexual citizenship’. To critique history as celebrated by statues is, then, to critique the construction of the nation state itself. This series analyses both how events and characters are chosen to be marked in a city or a country’s landscape, and how art might disrupt national and imperial ideals, functioning sometimes as a sort of counter-memory.

Series Publication Schedule

  • Part I: Portugal: the return of the colonial war, by Miguel Cardina
  • Part II: Which door to which city? The Vraca Memorial Park and anti-fascism legacy in Sarajevo, by Renata Summa
  • Part III: Indigenous Uruguay: monuments, histories and memories, by Henrique Gasperin
  • Part IV: The Red Atlantic: modernity and markers of discrimination, by Victor Coutinho Lage
  • Part V: The Memory Sewing: alternative history(ies) of the past and present, by Mariana Caldas

[i] Walter Benjamin, ‘Theses on the Philosophy of History’ in Illuminations (New York: Schocken Books, 2007), p. 256.

Filed Under: Blog Article, Feature, Series Tagged With: history, History and Power, Luciana Martinez, Memory, Monuments, Series, Series on Memory, Strife series

Footer

Contact

The Strife Blog & Journal

King’s College London
Department of War Studies
Strand Campus
London
WC2R 2LS
United Kingdom

blog@strifeblog.org

 

Recent Posts

  • Climate-Change and Conflict Prevention: Integrating Climate and Conflict Early Warning Systems
  • Preventing Coup d’Étas: Lessons on Coup-Proofing from Gabon
  • The Struggle for National Memory in Contemporary Nigeria
  • How UN Support for Insider Mediation Could Be a Breakthrough in the Kivu Conflict
  • Strife Series: Modern Conflict & Atrocity Prevention in Africa – Introduction

Tags

Afghanistan Africa Brexit China Climate Change conflict counterterrorism COVID-19 Cybersecurity Cyber Security Diplomacy Donald Trump drones Elections EU feature France India intelligence Iran Iraq ISIL ISIS Israel ma Myanmar NATO North Korea nuclear Pakistan Politics Russia security strategy Strife series Syria terrorism Turkey UK Ukraine United States us USA women Yemen

Licensed under Creative Commons (Attribution, Non-Commercial, No Derivatives) | Proudly powered by Wordpress & the Genesis Framework