Post on 06-Apr-2015
COMPLICATING TAINO IDENTIFICATIONS AMONG PUERTO
RICANS:
REARTICULATIONS OF THE TAINO TROPE WITHIN
NATIONALIST IDENTIFICATION DEBATES IN PUERTO RICO
BY
SUREY M. GALARZA
BA, Universidad de Puerto Rico, 2001
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology
in the Graduate School of
Binghamton University
State University of New York
2007
© Copyright by Surey M. Galarza 2007
All Rights Reserved.
iii
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology
in the Graduate School of
Binghamton University
State University of New York
2007
November 30, 2007
__________________________________________________
Carmen A. Ferradás, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University
___________________________________________________
Ann B. Stahl, Department of Anthropology, Binghamton University
iv
Abstract
This thesis presents an analysis of how new discourses around Puerto Ricanness
are formed in relation to history to show how, by negotiating the invention of Puerto
Rican traditions and imagining a ―racially‖ and ―culturally‖ homogeneous national
community, dominant groups in Puerto Rico institutionalized the ―Taíno‖ trope, as one
among several authenticating tools of Puerto Ricanness. The selection and
institutionalization of the ―Taíno‖ trope as part of the ―cultural‖ and ―biological‖ heritage
of the Puerto Rican cultural and national identity occurred within a particular ideological,
social, political and economic context that will be scrutinized in this project. Through this
historical examination, I accomplish two things. First, I bring to the forefront the
contested and ambiguous nature of the ―Taíno‖ construct by emphasizing its different
uses and mobilizations. Second, I establish the important role that the ―Taíno‖ construct
has played in Puerto Ricans‘ imaginings about their national and cultural identity.
v
Acknowledgments
Whenever I have felt I cannot finish something, my mother inspires me with this
saying: Only the braves do brave things. Not only her knowledge has been a key for my
thoughts and decisions but also her unconditional support. I cannot think of being who I
am and what I have done without her. Even when she is so many miles away, she has
helped me put my ideas together, has listened to my complaints, and comforted me when
I am sad. I would not have been able to write this thesis without her. My father has also
been an example and a driving force for me. I have always thought that he is one of the
smarter persons I will ever meet. His ideological opinions with respect to Puerto Rican
history and politics have impacted the way I think, and, definitively, my ideas for this
thesis. My sister, Iraida, and my boyfriend, Jorge, were also wonderful intellectual and
emotional supporters. They helped me go through this process of writing by putting my
ideas in perspective, and helping me in any way they could. Jorge, in particular, helped
me solved technological and computer problems which made this process much easier. I
also want to acknowledge the help of my aunts and uncles Ñañi, Frank, Fina and César,
and Doña Ana for providing me with quiet rooms for writing. It was in these spaces
where most of my productive writing occurred.
Carmen Ferradás and Ann Stahl were extraordinary intellectual guides for writing
and thinking. Not only they have given me the tools for improving my writing style and
for organizing ideas but they have also dedicated time to listen to me, answer questions
and hear my concerns and fears. This thesis is the result of their support, dedication and
unconditional help. Most of the ideas I developed in this thesis occurred under their
wings. They have given me the knowledge and the conceptual tools to approach this topic
vi
and have supported my opinions. Without them as examples and guides I would have not
been able to finish this thesis.
Also I want to thank my friends Archana Mohan, Maria Theresia Starzmann,
David Gerstle and Sarah Sunderman. They have become an intellectual support group.
Their opinions and advice helped me develop my questions and answers. Archana, in
particular, has been like another teacher. Whenever I had a question or did not know
something, she was there to help me. Moreover, I want to thanks Clifford D. Clark
Fellowship for its support. It has given the opportunity to come to Binghamton
University, do research and write this thesis.
I am in debt with all of them.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...iv
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..v
Chapter I: Introduction…………………………………………………………….1
Introduction………………………………………………………………..1
Some theoretical considerations…………………………………………..3
Hegemony and Colonialism……………………………………….4
Nation, race and culture………………………………………….10
Puerto Ricanness and Taínoness…………………………………………17
Chapter Review………………………………………..…………………20
Chapter II: Constructing the Taíno symbol into a trademark of Puerto Ricanness:
the 19th
century…………………………………………………………………..22
Introduction………………………………………………………………22
Inventing Taínos…………………………………………………………24
Surveying the Political, Ideological and Socio-Economic Terrain of the
19th
century………………………………..…………………….………..28
The Taíno trope in 19th
century nationalisms……………………………39
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….46
Chapter III: Constructing the Taíno symbol into a trademark of Puerto Ricanness:
the 20th
century…………………………………………………………………..49
Introduction………………………………………………………………49
viii
Surveying the Political, Ideological and Socio-Economic Terrain of the
first half of 20th
century………………………………..………..………..52
Defining Puerto Ricans and the Noble Savage Construct…………...…..69
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….79
Chapter IV: Some contemporary uses of the Taíno trope………………………..82
Introduction………………………………………………………………82
Surveying the contemporary political, socio-economic and ideological
environment on the island………………………………………………..82
Examples of contemporary Taíno mobilizations and understandings...…87
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….91
Chapter V: Conclusions and Final Remarks……………………………………..93
Main Conclusions………………………………………………………..93
Further Questions………………………………………………………..98
Final Remarks…………………………………………………………..102
Appendix………………………………………………………………………..103
Figure 1 Las Tres Razas………………………………………………...103
Figure 2 Emblem of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture……………..103
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………104
1
Chapter I: Introduction
Introduction
This thesis presents an analysis of how new discourses around Puerto Ricanness
are formed in relation to history. The purpose is to show how, by negotiating the
invention of Puerto Rican traditions and imagining a ―racially‖ and ―culturally‖
homogeneous national community, dominant groups1 in Puerto Rico institutionalized the
―Taíno‖ trope, as one among several authenticating tools of Puerto Ricanness. The
selection and institutionalization of the ―Taíno‖ trope as part of the ―cultural‖ and
―biological‖ heritage of the Puerto Rican cultural and national identity occurred within a
particular ideological, social, political and economic context that will be scrutinized in
this project.
As Wolf (1982:6-7) observed, deconstructing taken-for-granted categories—such
as ―Taíno‖ and ―Puerto Rican‖—requires a holistic exploration of their emergence and
reproduction. This involves an understanding of the complex historical process that fixed
an ambiguous concept, transforming it into fact. Such constructs are not discrete things
but relationships that need to be placed back into the field from which they were
1 Throughout this thesis I will be employing the terms dominant groups, intellectuals, and elites to refer to
those local politically-powerful actors of middle and high social class whose ideological opinions
influenced the debates of national identity. These include local political leaders, as well as writers, poets,
artists and academics.
2
abstracted to see the connections between them and the political, economic, and
ideological realms (Wolf, 1982:1). In other words, we have to see them as complex
processes that change and unfold across time (Wolf 1990:590). For this reason, the
incorporation of the Taíno construct within the definition of the Puerto Rican national
identity will be considered as part of a more complex process that includes the political,
social, economic and ideological fields in historical context (1).
Through this historical and holistic examination, I wish to accomplish two things.
First, I hope to bring to the forefront the contested and ambiguous nature of the ―Taíno‖
construct by emphasizing its different uses and mobilizations. Following Stoler‘s (1997)
observation that the content of social categories is subject to change depending on the set
of power relations, and on perceptions and policies over time (105), I will pay attention to
the relationships, interests and perceptions of the different actors implicated in the
negotiations of Puerto Ricanness. These are not only the local elites, who will be the
central focus of this thesis, but also the popular classes and the colonial governments. All
these actors, their relationships, negotiations, and their complex interests and perceptions,
have contributed to the strategically shifting definitions of categories such as ―Taíno‖ and
―Puerto Ricanness‖ that appear to be fixed, commonsensical and permanent. Therefore,
both ―Taíno‖ and ―Puerto Ricanness‖ are going to be considered in this work as
essentialisms whose ambiguity permits their constant mobility and redefinition.
Second, I hope to establish the important role that the ―Taíno‖ construct has
played in Puerto Ricans‘ imaginings about their national and cultural identity. In the
construction of a national identity, Puerto Ricans have imagined a common past that
informs present conflicts and how contemporary Puerto Ricans see themselves. In turn,
3
the construction of a common history is always based on present experiences. Thus, this
is not a matter only of writing the present with the past but it is also a matter of writing
the past with the present (Friedman 1992; Guerra 1998:7-8; Olivier 2004).2 Not only has
the construction of the ―Taíno‖ trope played a role in the imaginings of Puerto Ricans
about themselves but equally what Puerto Ricans think of themselves is manifested in
their constructions of ―Taíno culture.‖ Hence, the discursive articulations of the ―Taíno
culture‖ that have been negotiated through time have been both a reflection and a
condition of how Puerto Ricans think of themselves.
In short, I wish this study explores how ―Taínos‖ have been constructed as Puerto
Ricans but also how Puerto Ricans have been constructed based on the understandings of
a ―Taíno past.‖
Some theoretical considerations
Prior to initiating the historical analysis that makes up this thesis, I need to bring
to the forefront some analytical tools that will help me to explore the making of a national
identity in Puerto Rico. In order to emphasize the constructivist and processual natures of
the Puerto Ricanness discourse, I do two things. First, I discuss the concepts of hegemony
and colonialism to highlight Puerto Rico‘s colonial situation. This will allow me to see
the particular relationships, claims and interests between the different actors involved in
the process of national identity formation. In addition, I discuss the concept of nation and
its relationship with concepts of ―race‖ and ―culture‖ in relation to the formation of
2 For a good case study that explores the dynamic relationship between history production and identity
formation, see Yelvington et al. 2002.
4
Puerto Rican national identity. This will help me articulate the complexities and
particularities of the process.
Finally, I dedicate a section here to briefly discuss the articulated relationship
between the constantly fluid national and cultural self-definitions among Puerto Ricans
and their understandings of Taínoness in the process of forming a national identification
discourse. I believe that understanding this interrelationship will be useful to reveal the
unique ideological space that has been given to the ―Taíno‖ trope within the national
identification discourse.
Hegemony and Colonialism
Gramsci‘s discussion of hegemony is useful for understanding the processes
through which national identity is constrcted and negotiated in Puerto Rico (Forgacs
2000:422-424). Hegemony is a continuous process in which a variety of interests are
mobilized and constantly negotiated between dominant and subordinate groups. Every
claim is forwarded within an environment of coercion, consent and resistance. When a
group‘s interests challenge the dominant groups in any way, it creates conflict. However,
this dialectical interaction opens up the possibility for negotiation and change. Therefore,
through opposition, struggle and consent, a hegemonic structure is reproduced at the
same time as it is changed.3 However, the hegemonic structure of Puerto Rico is more
complex than other countries. In addition to the complexities of local ruling elites and the
popular masses, Puerto Rican hegemony is and has been characterized by a third set of
actors: its colonial governments (Spain:1493-1898, and United States:1898-today). Thus,
3 This understanding of hegemony as both an ongoing process and an ―endpoint‖ was also discussed by
Florencia Mallon (1995); discussed in Dávila 1997:15; and Guerra 1998:14-15.
5
negotiations, consent, and conflict within the island are complicated by the interventions
and interests of these external and more powerful political authorities. These foreign
colonial states cannot be considered as monolithic and static. They too are characterized
by internal negotiations, contradictions and conflicts, which affect and are affected by
colonial affairs.
Understanding the complexities of these hegemonic relationships is indispensable
in contextualizing the discussions regarding Puerto Rican national identity that developed
under two different colonial governments: Spain and United States. North American
anthropological theory in the past decades has articulated new ways to approach the study
of colonialist relationships (see the works of Stoler: Stoler 1989, 2006, and Stoler and
Cooper 1997). However, in past decades, colonialism was perceived as a finished episode
by most North American scholars, who associated it with the conquest and exploitation of
indigenous groups by Europeans. As most European colonies acquired some kind of
autonomy or became nation-states by mid-20th
century, colonial rule was considered to
have disappeared. But colonialism was still a topic of interest after World War II in other
countries due to the continuing existence of other forms of colonialism, primarily based
on the intervention by foreign capital and by foreign states over other regions of the
world (see, for examples, Nkrumah 1966 and Quijano 1971). Yet, it was not until the
1990s that colonialism reappeared in the North American academic literature4, even
though if we consider colonialism as an ―asymmetrical inter-social relationship,‖ it seems
to have been present for the most part of world history (Thomas 1994:3).
4 However, North American and British historians continued to be interested in colonialism through this
period; see http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/post/africa/histbibl.html for a list of selected bibliography of the
colonial history of Africa ensembled by George P. Landow.
6
But colonialism is not simply a matter of political and economic intervention of
powerful nations to earn profit from others. To understand the different histories of
colonialism, anthropologists pay attention not only to the political and economic effects
on the colony and the metropolis. Rather every colonialist relationship has its cultural
particularities. Colonialisms are processes that are dependent on politico-economic
context as well as the cultural, ideological and social values of associated actors. These
colonialist cultural communities (both colonies and metropoles) are, however, very
diverse and fluid (Stoler 1989; Stoler and Cooper 1997:1-4). Therefore, the colonial
encounters and projects that develop are never perfectly planned, but are shaped, changed
and transformed in relation to the particular social, cultural, political, economic
experiences and interactions (Stoler 1989:136-139; Stoler 2006:128; Stoler and Cooper
1997:1-4; Thomas 1994:2-3). The relationships and interactions between colonies and
metropoles are particular and always changing processes that need to be analyzed in
relation to the context and interests involved.
The particularities of a colonialist government over specific colonies can be
appreciated in the case of Puerto Rico. Although different metropolitan governments
colonized the island in different time periods, the colonization of Puerto Rico by Spain
and by the United States differed in the politico-economic interests, cultural values and
ideologies they sought to impose on the island‘s populations. In turn, these different
cultural values had an impact on the responses, struggles and ideological debates within
the island. For instance, the ―racialization‖ system that was introduced and applied by
Spain and the United States differed significantly. Under the Spanish colonial
government a ―racial‖ categorization system was applied with relatively fluid ―racial‖
7
categories. The concept of ―race‖ had to do with ancestry, physical characteristics and
with ―national‖ origins (Piedra 1991). But, in addition, ―race‖ was (and still is)
thoroughly intertwined with social status as marker of difference (De la Cadena 2000:2).
This interrelation became embodied through the development in Spain and its colonies of
the Pureza de Sangre certificates at the turn of the 15th
century, which instituted proof of
―Hispanidad‖ (Piedra 1991:286). In this case, many ―mulattoes‖ and ―mestizos‖ from the
colonies were certified as pure ―Hispanos‖ or ―whites‖ based on how well they followed
or imitated official norms (Piedra 1991:290). In turn, socially accepted ―whites‖ in the
colonies could become ―blacks‖ by breaking the decency codes (Suarez-Findlay 1999). In
this way, there has been a fluid movement from one ―racial‖ category to another
depending on social position and social behavior5 (see also the discussion in Jiménez-
Román 1996:12-15). Also, the commonality of ―racial‖ intermixture during the Spain
colonialism and the production of a great number of ―racial‖ categories have been
associated with this fluid notion of ―race.‖
On the other hand, the ―racial‖ classificatory system that was introduced through
U.S. colonial occupation was more restricted (Smedley 2007:43-44; Quijano 2000:560-
561). Historically, Anglo-American ―racial‖ categories developed, not only as a tool to
differentiate ―whites‖ from a ―black‖/―Indian‖ non-American Other but also as something
that is inherited and unchangeable. Bringing such ―racial‖ understandings to the Puerto
Rican context through the U.S. colonization of the island created considerable conflict. In
first place, Puerto Ricans are ―racially‖ perceived by North Americans as ―racially
impure‖ and/or ―blacks,‖ challenging the ―racial‖ self-perceptions already
5 A more contemporary example of this interrelation between social position and ―race‖ is the prevalent
Puerto Rican category of ―blanquito,‖ (little white) which is used for describing upper-class people, more
than to refer to skin color (West-Durán 2005:49).
8
institutionalized on the island (Santiago-Valles 1999; Scarano 1993:535-539). This, in
turn, has created conflicts over how Puerto Ricans can describe themselves. For instance,
U.S. demographic censuses that demand the ―racial‖ profile of Puerto Ricans are not
adapted to the meanings and definitions of the Puerto Rican ―racial‖ categories. With
alternatives such as ―White,‖ ―Black,‖ ―American Indian,‖ ―Asian,‖ ―Latino,‖ and
―Other,‖ the 2000 demographic census, in particular, concluded that 80.5 percent of the
Puerto Rican population self-defined as ―whites,‖ instead of ―mestizo‖ or ―other‖ (see
http://www.census.gov/PressRelease/www/2001/tables/dp_pr_ 2000.PDF). In the need of
more adequate ―racial‖ categories such as trigueño or moreno, it has been said, that
Puerto Ricans answered this census with their particular interpretations of the ―racial‖
categories available (Duany 2000; see also Gravlee 2005 for examples of ―color‖ or
―racial categories on the island). Moreover, a differential understanding of such ―racial‖
categories between North Americans and Puerto Ricans can also explain this
incongruence (West-Durán 2005:60-61). Such conflict is also experienced by Puerto
Ricans who migrate to the United States, where they are categorized within a different
―racialized‖ system.
In the case of constructing a national identity, particularities can also be
appreciated under both colonial governments. In addition to differences in the socio-
economic and political spheres, differences in social and cultural values, such as the
example described above, influenced the way in which Puerto Rican elites discussed and
negotiated this identity construction. For instance, a mestizaje discourse was employed
by 19th
-century elites and intellectuals to describe themselves in relation to the
metropolis. This discourse was institutionalized during mid-20th
century as the definition
9
of Puerto Rican ―culture‖ and nation. Nonetheless, the meanings that the term mestizaje
carried for Spaniards and North Americans were very different, and Puerto Ricans
modified their interpretations of mestizaje in relation to the metropolis‘ perceptions and
understandings. As mentioned, Spain‘s conceptions of ―racial‖ categories were more
fluid than Anglo-American ones. Though ―racial‖ intermixture was sanctioned in the
Spanish colonies, the Spanish policies that prevented ―racial‖ intermarriage were never as
strict as the British and Anglo-American policies. In this context, the mestizaje trope
mobilized by many Puerto Ricans during the 19th
century to assert a national identity
carried the notion of change and fluidity. Puerto Ricans who saw themselves as mestizos
believed that one can become ―whiter‖ or ―darker‖ depending on biological and social
factors.
This notion is still embedded in the contemporary understandings of mestizaje in
Puerto Rico. Yet, the North American notions of mestizaje—understood as ―impurity‖
and ―blackness‖—questioned the commonsensical perceptions of mestizaje in Puerto
Rico among elites during the first decades of the 20th
century. Elites who saw themselves
as ―whites‖ or ―mestizo-whites‖ were classified together with the popular classes as
―blacks‖ by North Americans (West-Durán 2005:55). In response, intellectuals and elites
sought to redefine the mestizaje discourse (González 1989:11-42). Consequently, many
emphasized the Spanish biological and cultural influence in Puerto Rico, and some even
described Puerto Ricans as ―the ―whitest‖ of the Antilles‖ (Ricardo E. Alegría6 cited in
Jiménez-Román 1996:9).
6 Ricardo E. Alegría is one of the 20
th-century‘s most influential intellectuals of the island. His
archaeological work on the ―Taíno culture‖ is still the basis for most of the ―Taíno‖ knowledge produced in
the island. Also, he is one of the founders and the first director of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture
(IPRC), the local government agency in charge of promoting the Puerto Rican culture since the 1950s.
10
Following these examples, therefore, the analysis of the selection and inclusion
process of the ―Taíno‖ figure within the formation of a national identity will consider not
only the socio-economic and political atmospheres through time, but will also take into
account the socio-cultural particularities produced within the different colonial situations
to explain the constantly changing ideological discussions about national identity among
Puerto Rican elites.7
Nation, race and culture
The concepts of ―race‖ and ―culture‖ have a history that cannot be addressed in
detail here. However, both concepts are drawn upon in this thesis as modern social
constructs that are used in practice to explain human differences. These are not real,
discrete entities. Their definitions are not fixed, but change across time and space. Thus,
their definitions have to be understood in relation to the specific context in which they are
being used (De la Cadena 2000:13). Moreover, their definitions and uses are entangled
and overlapping to the point that it is sometimes impossible to impose strict boundaries
between the two. To make use of these concepts, therefore, we have to consider not only
their emergence and classical understandings, but also that they are always-changing,
historically-specific, political and ambiguously-defined concepts (Trouillot 1995; Wolf
1982:1-7; 1994).
I will consider ―race,‖ in particular, as a concept that emerges in relation to
European expansion and colonization of the New World. Wolf (1994:3) and Santiago-
7 To see an example of the dynamics of identity construction in terms of ―race‖ in a colonial context, see
the case presented by Perdue 2004. This study is insightful as to see the process of colonizers vs. colonized
constructions of identity formation in terms of blood, and the conflicts and implications of these different
understandings.
11
Valles (2003:48), nonetheless, see continuities with European definitions of ―race‖ in
medieval Christendom, where some non-Christian societies were seen as barbarous,
inferior and in need of Christianity. Similarly, Smedley (2007) connects an emergent
European ethnocentrism and European values as precursors of this classificatory system
(37-73). Yet, in the Middle Ages, European categorization of human populations was still
based primarily on ―geo-cultural‖ classification or on ―cultural elements‖ such as
religion, language, and behavior. The association of these with physical characteristics
had not become widely taken-for-granted. In the context of later political, economic,
social and ideological circumstances that the modern concept of ―race‖ and racism took
form (Quijano 2000; Santiago-Valles 2003; Smedley 2007; Wolf 1994:3-5). As argued
by all of these authors, these changes occurred in the context of European expansion to
the New World, but since then it has been used in different ways. Such different uses
have to be linked to the socio-cultural, economic and political context in which ―racial‖
categories are constructed and used. In particular, due to being ambiguously-defined, the
concept of ―race‖ always works to preserve or challenge power relations (Graham
1992:1; Hangen 2005; Stoler 1997). Therefore, we, as social scientists, cannot ignore that
the construction of ―racial‖ categorization systems always occurs in relation to a socio-
cultural, political and economic context that associates apparent social and cultural
markers to ―racial‖ differences, and serves the function of perpetuating and justifying
power relations (Graham 1992:1; Stoler 1997:105). Thus, the concept of ―race,‖ although
it can be considered merely as a taken-for-granted essentialism or construction, is always
intertwined with the context in which it is used (De la Cadena 2000:13). For this reason,
it will be employed in this project as a historically-constructed term whose definitions
12
and uses cannot be understood outside of the political, economic and social interests of its
users.
In contrast to ―race,‖ ―cultural elements‖ have been used since time immemorial
to describe and categorize human groups (Smedley 2007:32). Nonetheless, the concept of
―culture‖ was appropriated by anthropology during the 20th
century as a means to
categorize variability among human encountered by Europeans (Wolf 1994:5-6). In spite
of the problematics that this broad definition implicates (see Dirks et al. 1994, Dirks
1996, and Wolf 1994:5-6 for a summary of the problematics and complexities of the
anthropological definitions of ―culture‖ and its historical uses), I will use ―culture‖ to
refer to the wide and heterogeneous societal elements that are considered to be part of
―culture‖: lifestyles, language, religion, artistic expressions, and worldviews. Yet, my use
of the word ―culture‖ does not admit that ―cultures‖ are real, bounded and natural entities.
―Cultures,‖ just as ―races,‖ are ambiguous social constructs whose meanings and
interpretations are always changing in relation to the particular context in which these
concepts are employed.
Nationalisms are more difficult to define due to the diversity and historical
specificities that shape the constructions of national identities. Social analysts,
nonetheless, have compared different nationalist projects in order to understand the
importance they have acquired in present day. For instance, there has been a general
understanding that all nationalist programs include the formation of a homogenous
cultural identity based on an ethnic past or on recent inventions (Anderson 1983; Dávila
1997:9; Friedman 1992; Handler and Linnekin 1984; Hanson 1989; Hobsbawn 1983,
1990; Linnekin 1983, 1991; Ranger 1993; Williams 1993). Nevertheless, the most
13
famous and useful definition of nationalisms is that of Benedict Anderson. Through a
historical analysis of the emergence of nationalism in Europe, he defines the nation as an
imagined community, imagined as geographically limited and politically sovereign
(Anderson 1983:6). It is a cultural creation with a collective and social significance that is
rooted in social and historical processes (Duany 1996:250). I conceptualize nation in this
project based on this definition. The word imagined accounts for the constructionist
nature of every nationalist project. Yet, Anderson‘s emphasis on the political sovereignty
of nations is not useful for the case of Puerto Rico, as I will discuss below. Nonetheless
his historical approach serves as a helpful guide in emphasizing the processual aspect of
the formations of nationalisms. The formation of any imagined community is a
continuous process that needs to be constantly renewed and updated since it is always
contingent on the established power relations and socio-economic transformations. In
other words, it is always changing.
Another useful definition of nation for this analysis is Hobsbawn‘s (1983, 1990)
understanding of the concept of nation. In these works, he describes nations as ―invented
traditions that do not exist outside of the ideological machinery of nationalist elites or
popular movements engaged in struggles for self-determination‖ (Duany 1996:250). A
nation is then a collaborative and conflictive effort that requires the selection and
exclusion of symbols and cultural features. In the case of Puerto Rico, as we will see,
some ―racial‖/―cultural‖ categories and not others were selected by intellectuals and
political leaders when defining the Puerto Rican nation and ―culture.‖ Still, this is not a
constrained process. As Smith (1986) explains, it is not completely an invented or
imagined process because it is always historically grounded (Duany 1996:251). In this
14
light, the constrained inclusion of only ―Africans,‖ ―Taínos‖ and ―Spaniards‖ as ancestors
of Puerto Ricans in definitions of the nation is a reflection of the historically-constrained
sphere in which this process occur.
Furthermore, the developing of nationalist ideas in Puerto Rico has a particular
history that questions the classical view of nations as politically sovereign. Even though
Puerto Rican discussions of nationalism have included a sector that proposes the political
sovereignty of the island, national identification proposals have never been purely of a
separatist nature. As I will show, many national ideologies have not proposed political
independence for the island, but have been mobilized to obtain more influence over local
matters. Since the 19th
century, elites have expressed a national identification for as
disparate political agendas as political annexation with the metropolis, independence, and
different forms of political autonomy. Yet, all of these express a national identification in
conjunction with claims for social, economic and political reforms. As part of this trend,
the Puerto Rican nationalism that formed and was institutionalized during the 1950s has
self-identified as a culturally distinct community rather than as a nation-state. Even today,
most Puerto Ricans on the island do not want independence from the United States even
though all contemporary Puerto Ricans have a strong nationalist spirit that is manifested
in many social spheres.
For this reason, Dávila (1997:9) and Duany (2002:5) have described this present
type of nationalism as cultural nationalism to emphasize the ―historical circumstances
that led to the current emphasis on cultural distinctiveness, over concrete political
boundaries and definitions, as the primary determinant of national identity‖ (Dávila
1997:9). This emphasis on ―culture,‖ as argued by Dávila (1997:10), is the result of the
15
boundaries that a constant colonialism has imposed on the development of a politically
defined nation-state in the island. In a continuously constrained political environment, a
degree of autonomy was eventually achieved only through the domain of ―culture.‖ This
particular form of nationalism does not imply that the concept of ―culture‖ has no impact
on other nationalist projects elsewhere. On the contrary, as referred above, the
construction of a homogeneous ―culture‖ is widely entwined with nationalisms (Williams
1993:146).8
The construction and negotiation of Puerto Rican national identity centers not
only on the ―culture‖ trope. This process has also been characterized by the central role
that the concept of ―race‖ has played in the prevalent colonial context. Portrayed by
Spaniards and other Europeans as a ―racial‖ mixture, or mestizos, some Puerto Ricans
with an emergent nationalist spirit mobilized the mestizaje discourse as a self-defining
tool to put forward a variety of interests during the 19th
century. As Hangen (2005:49)
states ―[r]ace can be a powerful tool of oppositional identity.‖ This was not unique to
Puerto Rico. The mestizaje discourse was also employed by most Latin American
countries as a self-defining trope in response to European and/or Anglo-American
―racial‖ values, and, eventually, it was transformed into the national and cultural
identification discourse of most Latin American nations (Fernández-Retamar 1989;
Martínez-Echazabal 1998:21; Miller 2004). The Caribbean, in particular, was and has
been imagined and described by Europeans as ―bodies and cultural hybridities‖ (Scheller
2003:105, emphasis added). Subsequently, self-descriptions by Caribbean peoples of
their national ―culture‖ and history make use of this European invention. Thus, as part of
8 See the case of Lofgren 1995 for an example of the importance of cultural homogenization project as part
of a nationalist project.
16
the continuous ideological struggle of self-definition against the metropolis, the mestizaje
discourse as both ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ mixture or hybridity has served as a useful tool
for nationalist projects in the Caribbean and Latin America.
Embedded in this discourse is a language of common peoplehood which is pivotal
for every national identity. Even though mestizaje describes ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖
diversity within a group of people, it unifies them by linking them to a common history
and a shared heritage. This shared past is characterized in most Latin American and
Caribbean nations with ancestral diversity as a result of the continuous transplantation of
a diversity of human groups to these lands during the European expansion to America
(Segal 1994). Therefore, it is a selective process that is historically grounded. In this
sense, the cultural nationalism that was finally institutionalized in the 1950s in Puerto
Rico included three ―racially‖ categorized human groups and their alleged ―cultures‖ as
the sole contributors to the Puerto Rican ―culture.‖ These are the ―African,‖ ―Spaniard,‖
and ―Taíno cultures.‖ Their ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ combination, it is assumed, produced
Puerto Rican ―race‖ and ―culture.‖ Other ―cultural‖ and ―racial‖ categories were and have
been excluded since they are believed to have arrived after authentic Puerto Ricans
already existed, or because they made up an insignificant proportion of the population.
Finally, as I will try to illustrate, all nationalist projects are affected by
inequalities of power. In first place, they recreate prevalent forms of exclusions within
society (Dávila 1997:14). For instance, the 1950s‘ institutionalized nationalism
emphasized the ―Hispanic heritage‖ over the other two, and deemphasized the ―African‖
contributions. This description reflects the constant and prevalent ―racialization‖ and
racism on the island (Jiménez-Román 1996; Seda-Bonilla 1961; Zenón 1975). In second
17
place, this process is contingent on the prevalent power relationships that characterize the
island. At one level, the concept of ―race‖ has been used in national identity formation in
Puerto Rico and Latin America to include some ―racial‖ groups into the nation and
exclude others (Dávila 1997:14-16; Martínez-Echazabal 2003). At another level, the
concept of ―race‖ has been mobilized in Latin America as a self-identifying tool to
distance themselves from the metropoles (see discussion of Martínez-Echazabal 2003). In
turn, the concept of ―race‖ has served to maintain the economic and political power of
metropoles over their former colonies, even after the political independence of the latter
(Graham 1992:1; Miller 2004). Thus, the formation of a Puerto Rican national identity
has to be understood as part of the continuous ideological struggle of self-definition
against its metropoles. For this reason, I will analyze elite manifestations and debates
about defining the Puerto Rican national community in relation to the metropolitan
influence, perceptions and interests with the island.
Puerto Ricanness and Taínoness
Finally, my interest in analyzing the process of incorporation of the ―Taíno‖ trope
in the process of national identity formation has the purpose of understanding how Puerto
Ricans identify with ―Taínos.‖ This question emerged with my discovery of the Puerto
Rican Taíno Associations. Similar to organized indigenous groups around the world,9
Puerto Rican Taínos have organized into associations during the last three decades or
more to forward different claims. On the surface, the activities, conferences and events
that Taíno associations conduct seem to orbit around the issue of authenticity. Just as
9 See, for instance, Barreiro 1990a; Biolsi 1995; Bodinger de Uriarte 2003; Ferbel 2002; Forte 1998, 2001,
2005, 2006; Gullick 1995; Hulme and Whitehead 1992:345-343; Jiménez-Román 2006:107-108; Nash
1995; Strong and Van Winkle 1996; Sylvain 2005; Taylor and Pease 1994; and Toesing 2005.
18
other indigenous groups in Latin America and United States, their main interest is to be
recognized as authentic Indians at both local and international levels since it would give
them access to political and economic benefits. Their struggles and claims, however, get
complicated by the common belief that the ―Taíno culture‖ no longer exists. These
Caribbean indigenous groups—who supposedly lived on the island when Columbus
arrived—were allegedly exterminated during the 16th
century by diseases and
enslavement. However, these Puerto Ricans claim they are ―Taínos.‖
For this reason, these associations are the focus of considerable contention and
discussion (see for instance Barreiro 1989, 1990a, 1990b; Dávila 2006; Duany 2006;
Ferbel 2002; Forte 1998, 2001, 2005; Haslip-Viera 2006a, 2006b; Jiménez-Román 2006;
Martínez-Cruzado 2002; Múcaro-Borrero 2006; Roberts 2006). However, my interest in
this thesis is not an analysis of their struggles. What makes these groups interesting is
that, in comparison to Afro-Puerto Rican and Hispanic-Puerto Rican organizations, legal
recognition as indigenous groups is one of their main objectives, and not merely the
celebration of ―Taíno cultural heritage.‖ In my opinion, this strong ―Taíno‖ identification
tells us something about the significance that Puerto Ricans have placed on the ―Taíno‖
trope historically. In addition, their claims, struggles and negotiations illustrate the strong
influence that an imagined ―Taíno past‖ has on contemporary self-definitions among
Puerto Ricans. Therefore, I argue that, not only Puerto Ricans have constructed their past
with their present perceptions of themselves, but they also they perceive and understand
themselves through understanding, recreating and reviving their past.
For instance, since ―Taínos‖ are believed to have contributed ―racially‖ and
―culturally‖ to the production of the Puerto Rican ―race‖ and ―culture,‖ it is assumed that
19
some Puerto Ricans‘ contemporary behavior and customs were inherited from these
Taino roots. Following this argument, Puerto Ricans inherited not only such things as
vocabulary and agricultural knowledge, but also in terms of personality and character.
Social values such as nobility, simplicity, hospitality, love for nature, tamed spirit,
savagery, or a desire for freedom—which are considered within the national discourses to
be innate values among Puerto Ricans—are believed to be inherited by the ―Taínos.‖ In
fact, some analysts suggest that the ―Jíbaro‖ character, which is the standard symbol of
Puerto Ricanness, has been Taínonized because it is also associated with these social
values (Dávila 2006:42-43; Dávila 1997:71-72). These examples illustrate the ideological
importance of the Taíno trope among Puerto Ricans. The prevalent identifications with
―Taínos‖ suggest that Puerto Ricans have found in their imaginations some similarities
with ―Taínos‖ that have to be contextualized.
Moreover, as I explicate below, the different identifications with ―Taínos‖ have
been interconnected with the political environment in which Puerto Rican nationalisms
developed. In this environment, different nationalisms have constructed ―Taíno culture‖
in different ways. Since the 19th
century some elites have portrayed ―Taínos‖ as the
representative of, among other things, a political freedom that was frustrated with the
arrival of Columbus. Their death symbolized, for many Puerto Ricans, the death of their
political liberty. For others, their incorporation into Christianity meant their
humanitarianism, hospitality and cultural tolerance. Yet, for others, they were meant to
die in light of the superiority of the ―Spanish culture.‖ All these interpretations carry
different political interests. My goal, thus, is analyze the process of construction and
inclusion of the ―Taíno‖ trope within the Puerto Rican national identification discourse in
20
order to emphasize not only the constructive nature of the Taíno trope, but also to tell the
story of the Taínonization of Puerto Ricans.
Chapter Review
Chapters II and III contextualize the process of Puerto Rican identification on the
island, taking into account the politics of different ideologies. Chapter II focuses on the
19th
century when the strongest manifestations of Puerto Rican nationalisms occurred
under the Spanish colonial government. Chapter III centers on the turn of the century and
the first five decades of the twentieth century encompassing the change of colonial
authority that brought great socio-economical transformations. The socio-economic
transformations during this period had important repercussions for the discussions and
political struggles that developed on the island. In particular, it is during this time when a
cultural nationalism was institutionalized in the island. The relevance of this standard
discourse for notions of ―Hispanic heritage,‖ on one hand, and ―Taíno culture‖ on the
other, will be examined.
To make the connections between this historical development of nationalist
struggles in which the ―Taíno‖ trope was mobilized, and more contemporary
mobilizations of the Taíno trope, Chapter IV will briefly introduce some contemporary
uses and meanings. I will not address these struggles in detail since they will be the focus
of future work. The purpose of introducing them is to establish some connections that
will be discussed in the last chapter. Chapter V encapsulates the main arguments of this
thesis. Building on the examples developed in previous chapters, I explore the vital
character of ―Taíno heritage‖ in the self-description Puerto Rican elites. In the process, I
21
will bring to light the processes through which not only ―Taínos‖ became Puerto Ricans
but also Puerto Ricans became ―Taínos.‖
22
Chapter II: Constructing the Taíno symbol into a trademark of Puerto Ricanness:
the 19th
century
Introduction
Cajiga‘s serigraphy The Three races (1998)10
portrays the three ―racial‖/―cultural‖
components of Puerto Ricanness: Taíno, Spaniard, and African (see Appendix: Figure 1).
These face the spectator and show a marker of their respective ―cultures‖: a cemí,11
the
Spanish flag, and an African drum, respectively. They are simultaneously surrounded by
markers of Puerto Ricanness such as the Puerto Rican flag, the official defense shield,
and a map of the island with the names Boriquén12
and Puerto Rico written on it. This
painting represents a general formula of nationalism that can be traced back to the 19th
century and continues until this day. If we compare this painting with the emblem of the
10
Luis Germán Cajiga (1934- ) is one of the most popular contemporary painters on the island. He
specializes in serigraphies that portray aspects of ―Puerto Rican culture,‖ such as The Three Races
serigraphy and sceneries of the island, which are very popular in the island as propaganda for events.
However, many of his expositions have been presented in educational art centers and museums, and he also
sells his art pieces in affordable prices for wider audiences in a context in which Puerto Rican ―culture‖ has
become something that sells (Davila 1997). His art has been sponsored by the Intitute of Puerto Rican
Culture (IPRC), and he has participated and won in many international and national art competitions. For
more information about his life and other art pieces, explore http://cajiga.net/ and.
http://www.estudiocajiga.com/reproducciones.htm. 11
Cemíes are believed to be stone-made representations of Taíno deities. 12
Borinquén or Borikén is believed to be the name Taínos gave to the island.
23
Institute of Puerto Rican Culture (IPRC;13
approved by the Institute in 1956), which also
depicts the three ―races‖, we see significant difference (see Apendix: Figure 2). Although
the format is similar, the ―racial‖ representatives of Puerto Ricanness are structurally
positioned in a different way. In Cajiga‘s representation, the Taíno receives all the
attention of the observer as it is placed in the center front of the painting. The African and
the Spaniard are behind him and to the sides. In contrast, the IPRC representation has the
same structural positioning but the center front position is occupied by the Spaniard.
If we consider the idea that any material produced in a society is inextricably
contingent with the ideological environment and hegemonic processes in which it exists
(Bakhtin & Medvedev, 1928), then these two materials can be said to be articulating
actively with an ideological definition of Puerto Ricanness in different ways. Even
though they represent different interpretations of this ideology, both include the same
general formula: Puerto Rican ―culture‖ and ―race‖ is the result of a combination of these
three ―races.‖ Thus, I understand such materials as examples of a discourse of Puerto
Rican national and cultural identification that developed on the island and was eventually
institutionalized in the 1950s under specific circumstances. These materials are active
sedimentations of a historical process that I want to recount here.
In this chapter, I describe the selection and inclusion process of these three
―racial‖ components and the differential allegorical emphasis that they have been given
by different actors. In particular, I give special attention to the mobilizations of the
―Taíno‖ trope by different intellectual groups in Puerto Rico since the 19th
century. As I
will show, the process of their inclusion, the meanings these heritages have acquired
13
The IPRC is the governmental institution that is in charge of defining, promoting and regulating the
Puerto Rican ―culture‖. It was founded in the 1950s and directed by Ricardo E. Alegria under the political
administration of Luis Muñoz Marin, the first elected local governor in the island.
24
across time, and their relative significance, are all contingent upon specific political
environments.
The historical focus of this chapter is the 19th
century, a period characterized by
many political and socio-economic changes in Puerto Rico, during which strong
expressions of nationalism emerged. Yet, because emphasis will be given to how elites
mobilize the ―Taíno‖ trope, I will briefly discuss the emergence of the concept of ―Taíno‖
as a ―racial‖ category in the 15th
and 16th
centuries, paying particular attention to the
constructed, ambiguous and contested nature of the Taíno trope. Different narratives of
Puerto Ricanness emerged during this time. Their differences lie on the particular
interests of the different actors. However, all of them are constrained by the already
defined world in which they are produced. This world is based on the social, political and
economic relationships between different groups within the island, between the island
and the metropolis, and relationships on a more global sphere.
Inventing Taínos
According to Stoler (1997:105), ―racial‖ taxonomies change in space and time. The
content of such designations are subjected to changes in power relations and to changes
in perceptions and policies. Thus, they cannot be understood outside the historical and
political contexts in which they develop. To understand the colonial invention of the
category ―Taíno,‖ therefore, we have to explore the context in which it emerged.
I call this category an invention because it emerged from a process of naming the
Other in a colonial context (see discussions in CSIC 1990; Hulme 1986a, 1986b; Moffit
and Sebastian 1996; Sued-Badillo 1978:33-35, 1995; and Whitehead 1995a, 1995b).
25
Even though this term was assimilated from the Caribbean indigenous languages, the
meanings it acquired are based on the Spaniards‘ perceptions and imaginations about
these populations, and on their politico-economic interests over them. Hence, 15th
- and
16th
-century Spaniards used the ―Taíno‖ trope to designate and categorize some
indigenous populations of the Caribbean based on their understandings of what and who
―Taínos‖ were.
In particular, the naming and categorization of the Caribbean indigenous
populations by Spaniards was a dichotomous process. The ―Taíno‖ category was
constructed in opposition to the ―Carib‖ construct, which was also used to describe some
Caribbean indigenous groups. But whereas ―Taínos‖ became the embodiment of the
noble savage, the ―Caribs‖ were described as savages and cannibals. In this way,
although ―Taínos‖ could be Christianized and whereas ―Caribs‖ could not be, both
human categories were transformed into exploited labor to extract gold and generate
other products (Sued-Badillo 1978; 1995). Consequently, this categorization system
served as a tool for the colonization and conquest of the indigenous people of the
Caribbean (Whitehead 1995a:10). The naming of groups as a technique of power in
colonial settings was not unique to this case. Naming as an instrument of colonization has
been previously discussed by other authors in other colonial cases.14
Similarly, the
Spaniards‘ uses of the ―Taíno‖ category made it a ―category of power‖ (Stoler 1997:105;
Trouillot 1995:114) since it became an instrument of power through imposing onto
human groups particular meanings and, therefore, positioning them within the developing
colonial power structure (for discussions about the European understandings of these
14
For examples see Hawkins 2002 and Lentz 2000.
26
native populations see Duviols 1990; Gil-Bermejo 1990; Kropfinger 1990; Moffit and
Sebastian 1996; and Sebastian 1990).
It is believed that ―Taínos‖ were the indigenous populations of the Greater Antilles
and the ―Caribs‖ lived in the Lesser Antilles at the arrival of Columbus, and that ―Caribs‖
were warlike while ―Taínos‖ were a passive culture; however, as Sued-Badillo (1978)
argues, the geographical and cultural categorization of Caribbean aborigines by Spaniards
was not a response to cultural or ethnical realities. In his opinion, these categorizations
were purely political. In first place, he demonstrates the inconsistency and instability of
the geographical classification of the Caribbean during the first decades of conquest.
Puerto Rico, for instance, was classified as either ―Carib‖ or ―Taíno‖ territory depending
on Spanish economic interests vis-à-vis the island and indigenous groups:
At the height of 1520 […], there were still no valid criteria to make ethnic distinctions,
except according to behavior favoring or resisting Spanish conquest. Not even geographic
criteria were consistent, for […] the different islands were constantly classified and
declassified according to political and economic concerns. (Sued-Badillo 1995:72-73).
In most cases, the indigenous naming had the purpose of obtaining Amerindian slaves
for continental expeditions or they were enslaved through encomiendas.15
In this sense,
the European construction of ―Carib‖ vis-à-vis ―Taíno‖ served to distinguish those
Caribbean Indians who could be transported to other islands as slaves—―Caribs‖—from
those that were Spanish allies—―Taínos‖ (Hulme 1986a, 1986b; Moffit & Sebastian
1996:3-13.; Sued-Badillo 1978:39,1995). Therefore, these classificatory terms were
15
Encomienda was a trusteeship labor system that the Spanish Crown employed with the many indigenous
groups of the Americas during the Spanish colonization and conquest of the Americas. Spaniards had
tutorship over Indians that worked for them under coerced conditions. Thus, the encomenderos were
expected to teach Indians Catholicism, while simultaneously controlling them. Under this system, many
indigenous groups were exploited and enslaved.
27
consistently used by conquistadores in relation to their constantly changing politico-
economic interests with them.
All these authors argue that the definition of each category had a basis in the
Spaniard‘s already defined imagination, at the same time as produced in opposition to
how Spaniards defined themselves. Moreover, Sued-Badillo (1978; 1995) contests the
existence of ―Taínos‖ as a real ethnic group before the Spanish colonization based in a
rereading of colonial documents. He demonstrates a continuous movement of
Amerindians throughout the Caribbean islands before and after the Spanish conquest of
the Caribbean. For him, this continuous movement challenges the notions of a bounded,
static cultural group that allegedly distinguishes ―Taínos‖ from ―Caribs.‖ Moreover,
Sued-Badillo (1978) contests the bounded nature of the ―Taíno‖ category by bringing the
conflictive and, often, contradictory interpretations of ―Taíno‖-classified human groups
among 16th
-century Europeans. He argues that those understandings and events that
question the nobility of ―Taínos‖ or the barbarism of ―Caribs‖ have been frequently
ignored (1978:33-90).
By considering these politico-economic aspects of the colonization process of the
Caribbean islands, the analyses of Sued-Badillo reveal the invented and constructivist
aspect of the ―Taíno‖ trope. We can see that the meanings and uses of the ―Taíno‖ trope
are contingent on the political and historical context in which they emerged. During the
15th
and 16th
centuries, the political and economical interests of the Spanish Crown had an
influence on the Spanish description and perceptions of the indigenous groups (CSIC
1990; Hulme 1986a, 1986b; Moffit and Sebastian 1996; Sued-Badillo 1978:33-35, 1995;
and Whitehead 1995a, 1995b). Therefore, in order to justify the colonization enterprise of
28
these islands in search of gold, the ―Taíno‖ trope emerged and was reproduced with
meanings of primitivism and nobility, meanings that went hand in hand with the
―civilizing mission‖ ideology. ―Caribs,‖ on the other hand, were considered not only
primitives but also incorrigible and evil savages. With these meanings at hand, Spaniards
continuously classified and declassified Caribbean indigenous groups in relation to their
political and economical interests and experiences.
Invented categories such as ―Taínos‖ and ―Caribs,‖ however, have been reproduced
and maintained to this day. As previously mentioned, every essentialist thinking derives
from ―the political effectiveness of a system of social classification that appears fixed,
permanent, and commonsensical while it remains porous and pliable‖ (Stoler 1997:104).
Due to this malleability, such ―racial‖ categories have been adapted and reproduced
across time in relation to the hegemonic relationships on the island. As we will see in the
next section, the meanings and understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope changed in relation to
the political interests of the actors. But, even though a variety of meanings were
adjudicated to the ―Taíno‖ trope across time, the ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ category of
―Taíno‖ is reproduced as a commonsensical, bounded category.
Surveying the Political, Ideological and Socio-Economic Terrain of the 19th
century
Puerto Rican nationalisms initially manifested in a context of nationalist struggles
elsewhere in America. Ideologies of nationalism were already in development during the
18th
century in most European colonies in America. Yet, due to specific circumstances,
the next century saw the strongest expressions in the Spanish colonies. Scarano (1993)
and Corchado-Juarbe (1994) review the factors that could have prompted the aspiration
29
for independence and anti-colonialism among elites throughout all America. In first
place, they recount that 19th
-century nationalist revolutions against Spain by most
Spanish colonies were inspired by the examples of the French Revolution (1789), the
Haitian revolution (1791-1804),16
and United States independence (1776). In addition, as
a result of Spain‘s political instability—characterized by internal political conflicts and
its prejudicial involvement in conflicts with England and France—the abandoned Spanish
colonies saw an opportunity to organize and battle for independence. Most of the Spanish
colonies in America gained their independence during the first decades of the 19th
century. These revolutions and the ideologies that were mobilized were very influential
on Puerto Rican elites. Furthermore, these local debates about a national identification
were infused by the liberal ideas that came from Spain during its political crisis by the
turn of the century and by the French reforms after the French revolution (Scarano
1993:366-370).
Certainly, this 19th
-century nationalist environment had an impact on
intellectuals‘ ideological development on the island. But it also changed the Spanish
treatment of the islanders. A nationalist spirit fostered revolts on the island throughout
this century. The particular conditions in Puerto Rico, however, did not lead to the
separation of the island from Spain. In first place, as a result of the revolutions that
exploded elsewhere in America, Spain increased political surveillance against
revolutionaries and intensified repression against slaves on the island. In fact, throughout
16
Haiti‘s revolution had a significant impact on the debates over the independence of many American
nations but this is generally overlooked. The Haitian revolution challenge European‘s notions about the
capacities of blacks to riot, battle and self-govern, which was underestimated on the basis of racist models.
But it also warned them about the slaves‘ and colonized peoples‘ capacities to organize for insurgency.
This resulted in more surveillance and repression. In the American colonies, rumors about the possibility of
slave uprisings augmented the repression of slaves. However, in the long run, discussions about the
abolition of slavery became the best solution to control slaves. For more information in regard to Haitian
revolution and its impact on Puerto Rico, see Scarano 1993:357-358, 363-366).
30
the 19th
century, surveillance and repression predominated, with the hope of avoiding any
elites or slaves insurrections. For instance, Spain conceded ―omnipotent faculties‖ to the
governor Meléndez through the 1810 Cédula in order to prevent any type of uprisings
(Scarano 1993:337). Also, Spanish military forces stopped frequently on the island as a
consequence of the colonies‘ revolutions against Spain, which made difficult the
development of a political rebellion. On top of this, the Spanish military forces in Puerto
Rico were in themselves well recognized as a defense force. In 1797, for instance, they
ably and easily defended the island against a British invasion. Just as with the British,
then, the great military presence on the island—characterized also by the impressive
military fortifications of the capital—prevented rebellious forces from taking over the
island.
Other political factors prevented the development of a national revolution in
Puerto Rico. Firstly, many Spaniards or pro-Spain families who were exiled from newly
independent American nations chose to settle in Puerto Rico, augmenting the number of
elites who were loyal to the Crown. Moreover, the main interest of many local elites was
the negotiation of more economic autonomy and not political independence. Scarano
(1993:377) suggests that Puerto Rican Creoles were less unhappy with Spain than elites
from other colonies because of the political influences they had on colonial decisions
about the island. Therefore, after Spain conceded the 1815 Cédula de Gracias reform,
they focused investment on the sugar industry, which was in great demand.17
This reform
propelled the Puerto Rican economy which was in crisis by 1812 via, among other things,
the opening the Puerto Rican markets to neighbor countries such as the United States. It
17
The demand for sugar increased with the economic devastation of Haiti—the highest producer of sugar in
America—after its revolution.
31
also promoted the entrance to the island of rich, white investors through land incentives,18
and permitted the importation of more African slaves and industrial machinery. As a
result, Puerto Rico became the second producer of sugar after Cuba.
In this repressive political environment, elites preferred to negotiate with the
metropolis for more influence over local affairs over revolution. As a consequence of
these negotiations, which fluctuated from moments of successful reforms to very
authoritarian regimes, the socio-economic environment was transformed. Scarano
(1993:396-398, 460-470) explains that throughout the 19th
century Puerto Rico‘s
economy oscillated between good and bad moments associated with sugar, coffee or
tobacco production. In general terms, these changes occurred in response to changes in
the international markets, and the metropolis‘ economic policies over the island. For
instance, the 1815 reform that propelled the sugar industry in the island was conceded by
Spain in a moment when Liberal politics were very influential in the Spanish government
(Scarano 1993:380-382). It was also the result of the increase in international demand of
sugar after the Haitian independence. But, after 1825, the Spanish colonial government
again became more authoritarian and conservative, and this reform was accompanied
18
A reason for Spain to implement the Cédula de Gracia (1815) in Puerto Rico and Cuba was, among other
things, to whiten the local population. This was also a response to the Haitian revolution, and later on, the
other revolutions, which proved the capacities of slaves and colonized peoples to rise up. In this logic,
whitening the population with Europeans who were loyal to the Crown would decrease the possibility of
revolution. Many authors suggest that this strategy had an impact on the islands‘ politics. For instance, in
this still racist and repressive context, 19th
-century Puerto Rican separatists had to hide or deemphasize
their black roots, mobilizing instead a more unthreatening figure, the ―Taíno‖ symbol, for their anti-
colonial projects (Duany 2006). In this way, more elites who supported the metropolis‘ colonial projects
were incorporated into the population. This whitening ideal has been discussed about other nations such as
Brazil (e.g. Skidmore 1992), Argentina and Cuba (e.g. Helg 1992). In the case of Puerto Rico, this
whitening ideal is still a desired goal (West-Durán 2005:60-61, 66).
32
with more restrictions and intensive labor exploitation (391). Hence, complicated by this
and other factors, the local sugar industry eventually declined.19
Nevertheless, the dominance of the sugar industry throughout the 19th
century
brought vast socio-economic changes. In first place, with the large immigration of
investors and workers that came from everywhere in the Americas and Europe and the
substantial importation of African slaves to support the sugar industry, the local
population increased substantially. From 1812 to 1846 it doubled, and then quadrupled by
1890.20
As a result, many Jíbaros,21
merchants, and coffee investors moved to the
mountainous region of the island in search of ways to survive. This internal migration
was to have an effect on the coffee and tobacco industry later in the century.
As a result of this developing capitalism and its subsequent population growth,
the popular classes suffered and there was misery and impoverishment among workers
and slaves. Not only they were the first target of diseases and plagues in the island, but
they were the ones who suffered the most with the fluctuations in the local economy and
decisions of the colonial government. For example, with the introduction of large
numbers of slaves throughout this century to support the sugar industry, new policies
emerged to quiet down any type of slave insurgence. Complicating this atmosphere were
the British and French abolitions of slavery, and the banning of the African slave trade in
19
Sugar, tobacco and coffee were the three highest producing industries in the island during the 19th
century. The sugar industry dominated the island after the Cédula de Gracia. But by the end of the 19th
century coffee production, in first place, and tobacco secondly, became stronger than sugar. By 1876, the
sugar industry was no longer lucrative for their owners as a result of the increase in prices and importation
of slaves—due in part to the prohibition of the slave trade in England (1807) and political pressure—the
increase of competition with Europe, the United States and Asian sugar production, and the decrease in the
international value of the sugar (Scarano 1993:462-470). 20
Scarano (1993:412) documents population growth in Puerto Rico during the 19th
century. From 1800 to
1905, he shows that the population augmented almost 5 times. 21
Jíbaro was the term used to refer to small, local and subsistence farmers who usually lived in land
aggregates in very poor conditions, and preferred to work on their own. Whenever they had to work on
sugar, coffee or tobacco plantations, they picked the easier tasks since they usually survived with what they
produced in their own lands. Harsher tasks were assigned to slaves (Scarano 1993:405).
33
England. These events fomented slave revolts in the British and French colonies in the
Caribbean. As a result, Puerto Rican slave owners feared more slave uprisings in the
island. This caused the implementation of racist policies such as the 1848 Bando contra
la raza Africana (Band against the African race; for more information, see Scarano
1993:415-416, and West-Durán 2003, 2005:50-51). Such severe policies cost the lives of
many African slaves and workers of color on the island. Moreover, many farmers moved
to the mountains in search of land and work, with the arrival of investors that bought,
rented or stole coastal lands for sugar production. These workers known as Jíbaros
preferred the easier tasks in the coffee and sugar industries, and survived through
cultivating crops on their own. With the presence of slaves who could work under the
severe conditions of the sugar industry, they preferred to move to the central region of the
island. Yet, with the economic crisis that followed the end of the importation of slaves to
the island by mid-century, these workers became obliged to work through the
implementation of the 1849-1873 Journal Regime (Régimen de Libreta). (For more
information about the Journal Regime, see Scarano 1993:416-419.) In response to these
harsh conditions, then, popular classes constantly struggled against the state‘s policies
that forced them to work under cruel conditions. Slaves constantly escaped, rebelled, and
sabotaged sugar machinery and crops (Scarano 1993: 422-424). Jíbaros, free slaves and
waged workers, on the other hand, found ways to avoid the Journal regime or did not
complied to it at all (Scarano 1993:419, 471-474).
In this authoritarian atmosphere (which was a reflection of the metropolis‘
politics) African slaves and waged laborers were not the only ones to face socio-political
repression. The curtailment of individual liberties was experienced by all social classes.
34
In particular, the detrimental socio-economical environment of popular classes
increasingly inspired a reformist spirit among the elites. These liberal and reformist ideas
were at their height in many European countries and they, thus, reached the island‘s
elites. In response to these liberal ideas, the authoritarian Spanish colonial government
repressed and censored any reformist, separatist or liberal organization. Many of the
reformist groups—which were mostly intellectuals and artisans from the middle
classes—advocated for the abolition of slavery, the end of the Journal Regime and more
political autonomy. All these political reforms were seen as a necessary step for the
development of Puerto Rican society, whose material and social conditions were in
deterioration. Yet, they were in conflict with the interests of the proprietary elite. Thus,
reformists and separatists were constantly exiled, incarcerated, and exposed to any kind
of surveillance and regulations. For instance, the El Ponceño newspaper was banned after
Daniel Rivera‘s poem ―Agueybana, el Bravo‖ was published, which criticized and
challenged the colonial regime. Both the founder of the newspaper and Rivera were
incarcerated and the press was expropriated (Scarano 1993:421; Villagómez 2005).
In this atmosphere of political repression, a nationalist debate developed. In
particular, nationalist ideas emerged from the liberal sector of the elites. Yet, the majority
did not propose political independence but rather more political autonomy. In fact, the
definition of the nation in this repressive context can be analyzed in relation to the
different political interests of the classes struggling for power. The main actors are thus
the conservatives (who neglected any socio-political reform and worked for the interests
of the colonial government), the Liberal-autonomists (who wanted socio-political
changes and more political and economic autonomy), and the Liberal-separatists (who
35
wanted independence). Nonetheless, a nationalist spirit emerged and was promoted by all
elites proposing liberal and reformist projects. Indeed, during the few occasions in which
Puerto Rico was granted with the opportunity to select delegates to structure and present
to the Spanish Courts what the island needed, the reformists expressed their claims using
a very nationalist language. For instance, in 1809 local elites were given the opportunity
to speak and negotiate with the Spanish Courts. The claims organized by the elites, which
were liberals in its majority, were basically more political and economic autonomy.
Although their proposed reforms were never successfully implemented, the terms they
used to describe themselves was characterized by such words as the naturals, the
compatriots, and the sons of the country (Scarano 1993:372). This national identification
included the Creoles22
but seem to have excluded the popular classes and African slaves.
However, it suggests that a self-definition against the metropolis was already in place by
this sector of the elite.
Who elites included in their political claims is, in fact, suggestive of their
particular understandings of the Puerto Rican nation. Separatists and many Liberals
identified on many occasions not only with the elites but also with the popular classes,
who were the more affected by colonial policies.23
The conservatives, on the other hand,
represented mainly the interests of the land proprietors, merchants, and the colonial
government. As such, their attitudes toward the popular classes were more detached.
Nevertheless, the inclusion of some sectors of the popular classes in some political
proposals and claims was rooted on the ideological discussions of the time and on the
political interests of these elites. In first place, many scholars have shown that this
22
During this period, Creoles were the Spaniards born in the island or peoples with European ancestry. 23
In fact, pro-independence and abolition of slavery during this century were intertwined ideologies in
Puerto Rico (Scarano 1993:424-425; West-Duran 2005:49).
36
inclusion has served as a political strategy to gain or maintain political power. For
instance, Scarano (1996) suggests that the mobilization of the Jíbaro trope by early 19th
-
century Creoles served as a tactic to gain more popularity among the electorate, and to
articulate particular political messages. Secondly, most local reformists were influenced
by reformists elsewhere who advocated for the abolition of slavery, their recognitions as
humans, and universal suffrage. These discussions were ongoing in many European and
American nations, and they had an impact on how Puerto Rican reformists and separatists
identified with these groups. For example, the maximum leader of 19th
-century radical
separatists in Puerto Rico, who self-defined as a mulatto, was also the most radical
proponent of the abolition of slavery in Puerto Rico.24
In addition, most local literary work with nationalist sentiments that identified the
nation with the popular classes was inspired by the Spanish Romantic literature.25
Following this literary tradition, many local writers and artists recreated and depicted the
countryside of the island, and what they understood as the customs, life and thoughts of
the Jíbaro as the representation of the Puerto Rican nation (Scarano 1993:496-508). From
this literary movement, a Creole and Romantic literature emerged, whose main purpose
was to celebrate everything national, and criticize the colonial government by
24
Ramón Emeterio Betances (1827-1898) is considered the most radical leader of the 19th
-century
separatism in Puerto Rico. He and others organized the Grito de Lares of 1868, the biggest revolt against
Spain. His reformist spirit was influenced by the 1848 French revolution, in which he participated, and by
liberal discussions that developed in France, where he studied and lived a great part of his life. In addition,
he admired both Haiti‘s and Dominican Republic‘s abolition of slavery. Most of his work in the island was
not only in favor of its independence, but also he freed and cured hundreds of African slaves. For more
information about Betances, go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betances. 25
Most of these intellectuals were from high and middle social classes and studied in Spain and Europe
(Scarano 1993:489-508)
37
emphasizing the bad material and social conditions of the island.26
However, similar to
other Latin American countries such as Brazil and Venezuela, the mestizaje discourse
employed by Puerto Rican elites as the national identity was exclusionary. As argued by
many authors, they did not include African slaves and living Native Americans (in the
case of Brazil and Venezuela). This exclusion served as a means to legitimize the power
of the elites in the new nation-state (Quijano 2000:568-570).
Interestingly, all local elites understood Puerto Ricans as a mixture of ―races‖ and
―cultures.‖ Such reasoning was based not only on their experience of ―racial‖
intermixture. But the ideology of mestizaje per se was based on the Spanish perceptions
of the local population since the 16th
century. Natives were described by Spaniards as
mestizos and mulattoes. Mestizaje was defined as a ―racial‖ mixing that resulted from the
colonization process of the island which brought together Taínos, Spaniards and African
slaves into a mestizo population.27
These Spaniards‘ perceptions of the islanders were
confirmed by the many policies that were employed in the island to stop or reduce this
constant ―racial‖ mixing.28
Implied by 19th
century poems and writings, many intellectuals also understood
the Puerto Rican nation as a mixture of Taíno, Spaniard, and Africans. For instance, José
Gautier Benítez, in his A Puerto Rico poem (1879) describes Puerto Rico as the result of
a colonization process characterized only by Spaniards, Taínos and African slaves.29
This
26
From this literary movement I can mention Manuel Alonso (1822- 1889), Alejandro Tapia y Rivera
(1826-1882), Lola Rodríguez de Tió (1848-1924), Manuel Fernández Juncos (1846- 1928), and Manuel
Zeno Gandía (1855- 1930). 27
See Corchado-Juarbe‘s (1994) analysis of the Elegia VI of Juan de Castellanos of 1579 (pp.13-35). This
16th
-century poem described the historical formation of the native population of the island as a mixture
between Taínos, Africans and Spaniards. 28
See Suárez-Findlay (1999) for a detailed discussion of racist policies, and the social and ―racial‖
struggles it produced in the 19th
century. 29
See http://www.los-poetas.com/k/gautier1.htm.
38
combination was also described by local 19th
-century historians (see below). Moreover,
this appropriation of the mestizaje trope as a tool of self-description and as a discourse of
national identification was common in most Latin American nationalisms. Puerto Rico
was no exception. In order to describe the nation, its ancestral past had to be described. In
this way, the chronicles and descriptions of Spaniards and explorers who recounted the
colonization process of the island became a basis on which to construct the nation.
Nationalists from all political inclinations thus used this mestizaje narrative, even
though, as we have seen, so many immigrants and their descendants were becoming part
of the local population throughout this century. They mobilized this narrative also even
though other indigenous groups populated the island prior to the ―Taínos,‖ indigenous
groups that could be also considered the roots of the Puerto Rican nation.30
However, the
nationalist identifications that developed in the island recognized only the ―Taínos‖ as
their pre-Columbian ancestor. Hence, the Spanish historical narrative that characterized
the islanders as a mixture of Taíno, Spaniard and African was reaffirmed.
The topic of this next section will be a comparison of the different nationalisms
that developed in this century and their uses of the ―Taíno‖ symbol. As we will see, this
trope will reflect in some ways the interests and struggles of the different groups in
relation to the metropolis. Yet, its meanings will be crucial to self-define against Spain,
as it will link them ―biologically‖ and ―culturally‖ with the territory. Similar to most
Latin American nations, therefore, these indigenous roots will serve as a tool for
nationalists to reassert their Americanism or their Antilleanism.
30
To learn more about pre-Columbian indigenous groups in the Caribbean, see Curet 2005.
39
The Taíno trope in 19th
-century nationalisms
“To what, then, we owe our constant literary evocation of the Indian and
indigenous? Is it merely a resonance of the romanticism? No. It is that we are secretly
moved by the sacrifice of those that were our last truly free compatriots. Our Indian
longing is nostalgia for liberty.” Juan Antonio Corretjer31
(cited in Sued-Badillo
1978:vii).
For Sued-Badillo (1978), the existence of a cultural group called ―Taínos,‖ as
described by the opinions of 15th
- and 16th
-century Spaniards and colonial administrative
documents, was really a misapprehension of Spaniards that resulted from their inability to
communicate with Caribbean indigenous groups. However, this possible mistake or what
I have considered an invention became a dogmatic truth through the uncritical repetition
of what was written by conquistadores (2). In particular, during the 19th
century, we can
perceive a growing interest by local elites in this indigenous culture, which was
manifested in many artistic expressions and in the archaeological recollections and
research that developed to describe the ―Taíno‖ past. Puerto Rican elites were not alone
in mobilizing their understandings of the indigenous groups that populated the island at
the time of Spanish conquest. Most Latin American nations recreated heroic stories about
Indian natives in order to highlight a national spirit and criticize the colonial situation
(Corchado-Juarbe 1994:42; see Ayala-Richards 2003). This trend prevailed long after
these countries obtained their independence because imagining an Indian-Other permitted
elites to intellectually combat Spanish colonialism and reassert their Americanism. Also,
indigenous stories and descriptions became discursive anticolonial tools that served the
elites‘ needs and political interests. However, these were constructed in relation to how
elites perceived themselves. Guerra (1998) calls this process the ―intellectualization of
31
Juan Antonio Corretjer (1908-1985) was a 20th
-century writer and political activist against the U.S.
colonial government.
40
the Other‖ (7-8). Through this process, the indigenous population was idealized and
depicted by elites in relation to elites‘ self-understandings.
In the repressive colonial atmosphere of this period, local elites defined
themselves against Spain with the interest of acquiring more autonomic political power.
Similar to other Latin American nations, Puerto Rico discursively reconstructed ―Taíno
culture‖ by molding it into their self-perceptions, their interests and needs. However,
every form of nationalism appropriated the ―Taíno‖ trope in different ways. The result of
this conflict and contestation was the reaffirmation of the ―Taíno‖ trope as a
commonsensical ―racial‖ category, even though it was depicted in different ways.
The differences in the uses of the ―Taíno‖ trope were rooted in the socio-political
atmosphere of the 19th
century. As mentioned in the previous section, this century was
characterized by political transformations that included the independence of many
American nations from Spain, Britain and France, and the weakening of the Spanish
colonial government in America. In addition, by the last quarter of the 19th
century, the
U.S. threatened to expand to the Caribbean and the Pacific. As many of these colonial
governments struggled to increase or maintain their power over other countries, they
argued the incapacity of the colonized to govern themselves. In response, local peoples
who wanted political autonomy developed arguments against this civilizing mission
discourse. The uses and definitions of nationalisms in Puerto Rico were thus affected by
these ideological and political struggles.
In particular, the Spanish colonial government discussed the incapacities of
Puerto Ricans to govern themselves throughout this century.32
As a consequence, local
32
Discussions about the incapacities of local populations to self-govern were not only employed in the case
of Puerto Rico. This colonialist tactic was implemented to many colonies. For instance, Metha (1997:73-
41
colonial apologists who did not want to create a nation-state mobilized the mestizaje
discourse to accentuate these incapacities. Based on social Darwinism and European
scientific racism, many 19th
-century intellectuals and political leaders argued that the
cultural and biological heritage of Puerto Ricans were enough reasons to neglect the
possibility of the island‘s independence (Sued-Badillo, 1978:2-3). With those allegedly
primitive and barbaric populations—such as ―Taínos‖ and ―Africans‖—as ancestors,
Puerto Ricans would drive themselves into chaos if self-ruled. This idea was reinforced
by the local slave insurgencies and riots that characterized this period.
As discussed by Sued-Badillo (1978), many local historians such as Cayetano
Coll y Toste (1850-1930), Salvador Brau (1842-1912), Luis Llorens Torres (1876-1944),
and Agustín Stahl (1842-1917) constantly justified the established colonial government in
writing the Puerto Rican history. In addition, other writers such as José Gautier Benítez—
mentioned in the previous section—celebrated through their poems the arrival of the
Spanish Crown to the Caribbean, and the civilization of the ―Taínos,‖ ―Africans‖ and
Puerto Ricans. In this way, the narrative of mestizaje has been used by what Sued-Badillo
calls apologists as a vehicle to maintain the colonial status of the island.
Sued-Badillo (1978:1-32) analyzes closely the writings of these historians. He
concludes that within their narratives there was a hidden agenda: everything that the
island produces, either ―Taínos‖ or Puerto Ricans, needed the enlightenment of Spain in
order to become a civilized nation. In addition he shows that these historians reinforced
79) shows how the inscrutability and the discourses of civilizational infantilism were used by the British
colonial government to maintain the political control of India during the 19th
century. In addition, Martinez-
Echazabal (1998) discusses also the ideological conflicts that Latin American nationalists confronted when
employing the mestizaje trope as the national identification discourse since this trope implied and was used
by European metropolises to account for the inferiority and barbarism of the colonized peoples. Such
ideological conflicts were also experienced in Puerto Rico with the mobilization of the mestizaje discourse
as a national identification tool.
42
notions of primitivism and barbarism that both the ―Taíno‖ and ―African‖ tropes were
assumed to have. They also described everything indigenous including the ―Taínos‖ and
Puerto Ricans as being inferior and in need of the Spaniard civilization. Moreover, their
writings celebrated the Spain conquest of the island as they brought civilization and
enlightenment to the native populations. Native populations were also seen as tolerant
and easily to subjugate because of their nobility; an idea that is embedded in a noble
savage discourse. Thus, their understandings of Puerto Ricans as mestizos reinforced the
metropolis‘ interests.
What makes this analysis interesting is that many of these apologist writers and
intellectuals were liberals who were struggling for more political influence over island
affairs. Gautier Benítez, for example, used a very nationalist language to describe the
historical narrative that formed the mestizo Puerto Rican population. In his poetry, he
described the fatherland as free and able to progress and change. However, these
transformations are only possible through the civilized and hospitable spirit that
characterizes its population; not through revolution. Thus, he was mobilizing the
mestizaje discourse to argue for more political autonomy based on the idea that Spanish
colonialism brought civilization to the island. Yet, at the same time, he was reinforcing
the colonialist discourse against self-sufficiency by not challenging the barbarism that
was inscribed on the ―Taíno‖ and ―African‖ ―racial‖ categories; which were seen to cause
devolution of civilized peoples. This interpretation of mestizaje, in which the Spanish
element is celebrated, is considered a tool to maintain the Spanish descendants (Creole
elites) in power (González 1989:11-42).
43
Although most of these writers reinforced the colonial politics of the metropolis,
(as Sued-Badillo (1978) argues) they were crucial participants of the process of national
identity formation. In first place, they supported and reinforced the mestizaje discourse as
an identification tool of Puerto Ricanness. Although most of them wanted more political
autonomy and even assimilation with Spain,33
they depicted Puerto Ricans as mestizos. In
term of their uses of the ―Taíno‖ trope, they also contributed to the discussions of a
national identification. Through this trope, many reinforced the notions of savagery and
emphasized their primitivism and inferiority. However, some of them also presented
―Taínos‖ as rebels and defenders of the nation.34
This contradiction is understandable
when we place these writings within the tense ideological atmosphere of the 19th
century.
In this repressive and conflictive colonial context, ―Taíno‖ was understood by most elites
as primitive, uncivilized peoples at the same time as rebel and victorious.
Most degrading interpretations of the ―Taíno culture‖ were articulated in
opposition to the voices that claimed for political separation. Separatists, in particular,
were challenging the authority of Spain over the island, and defined their struggle on the
basis of longing for a ―Taíno‖ past, which for them represented absolute political freedom
(see Corretjer‘s quote at the beginning of this section). As a result, many apologists of the
colonial government engaged in an intellectual battle against the separatist intellectual
33
Some of these liberals saw assimilation as a way to obtain more political influence over the island and
improve its material conditions. However, as Spain did not attend their claims, most liberals moved to an
autonomist agenda. By the end of the 19th
century, most political and intellectual leaders will be liberal-
autonomists. This local ideological trend was influenced by the Cuban wars against Spain, the potential
intervention of the United States in this conflict, and the change on the metropolis‘ government, which
became more liberal by the end of this period. Consequently, even though the local strategies to obtain
more autonomic power were the cause of elite discussion, Puerto Rico finally obtained some political
autonomy in 1897. For more information about these ideological and political changes, see Scarano
(1993):514-543 34
See, for instance, Coll y Toste‘s Guarionex (1895) poem. Although his writings emphasized the primitive
nature of ―Taínos,‖ this poem celebrates the rebelliousness character of the cacique Guarionex. See
http://coquijote.org/Coquijote/guarionx.html webpage; discussion in Corchado-Juarbe (1994:75-76).
44
regime by publishing books which described ―Taínos‖ as intellectually, culturally and
biologically inferior. Salvador Brau, for instance, was assigned by the colonial
government to ―correct‖ the ―Taíno‖ history that separatists were allegedly distorting
(Sued-Badillo, 1978:6).
In contrast, most separatists reinforced the mestizaje discourse as an identification
tool, but it was rearticulated to justify their anticolonial agendas. Since most of them
wanted the independence, their mestizaje narratives rearticulated the ―Taíno‖ trope as the
embodiment of anticolonialism and revived it as the representative of freedom and
autonomy. For instance, two of the most recognized advocates for the independence of
the island published books that romantically described the Taíno populations as freedom
fighters.35
In addition, Daniel Rivera‘s Agueybana, el Bravo (mentioned above),
Alejandro Tapia y Rivera‘s poems El Ultimo Borincano (1862) y La Palma del Cacique
(1852), and Manuel A. Alonso‘s El Salvaje (1844) are also examples of writings that
celebrated ―Taíno culture‖ as the embodiment of anticolonialism to serve their political
needs. All of them portrayed the Indians unsatisfied with the Spanish presence in the
island, and thus as embodiments of freedom.36
In these writings, the ―Taíno‖ populations were also portrayed as the only
successful rebels against Spaniards in the island. As the argument goes, even though they
perished, they never stopped defending their land. In addition, ―Taínos‖ were also
conceived as the rightful owners of the island. Therefore, these narratives suggested that
35
These are Eugenio María de Hostos and Ramón E. Betances. They were persevering advocates of the
independence of the island from Spain. Due to their political inclinations they were expatriated several
times. Betances, as mentioned before, was one of the organizers of one of the biggest riots for the
independence of the island, El Grito de Lares. See Hostos‘ La Peregrinación de Bayoan (1863) and
Betances‘ Los Dos Indios (1852). 36
In Corchado-Juarbe 1994:49-61.
45
the Spaniards stole the island from them. In this way, their descendants—the mestizos—
had the right to rule. As Dávila (2006:37) cogently observes, ―The Taíno, the only
nontransplanted population on the island, becomes a conduit of patriotic devotion and a
tool to affirm a legitimate and continuous connection to the soil by the Creole ―Puerto
Rican‖ elite vis-à-vis the Spanish colonial authorities.‖ Therefore, not only these
mestizaje narratives were used to invite revolution or reformative acts, but they also took
the form of rightfulness and legitimacy to self-govern.
The ―African‖ element, in comparison, was not significantly mobilized for
disputing self-governance until the 20th
century. This was due in part to the prevalent
perceptions that elites and colonials had of slaves, free blacks and colored people and
their role on the Puerto Rican society. They were usually excluded from all or most
citizens‘ rights, and marginalized at the social, economic and political spheres. Africans
or ―blacks‖ were construed as exploited labor in this context in which legacies of slavery
lingered. Thus, the ―African‖ element that was mobilized in most mestizaje discourses
during this period always described them as savages. Still, as expressed previously, some
reformists identified with some sectors of the popular classes. Therefore, it should not be
surprising to find free slaves and mulattoes supporting, for instance, El Grito de Lares
(Scarano 1993:438-443)
In synthesis, all these intellectuals and political leaders formed part of the
ideological battles that defined the nation as a mestizo nation. But they rearticulated this
discourse in relation to their political interests with the metropolis, to the local political
struggles and with the changing circumstances in the metropolis. One rearticulating tool
was the ―Taíno‖ ―racial‖ category. This trope was constantly mobilized in relation to the
46
political interests and particular constructions of the nation of the elites. Thus, we see a
constant confrontational negotiation of the political destiny of the nation which
reinforced mestizaje as the self-defining tool of Puerto Rico. In this process of national
formation, the ―Taíno‖ was reinscribed with meanings such as primitive, savage,
rebellious, noble, and hospitable, and links to anticolonialism. These meanings, however,
meant not only what and how elites thought these selected ancestors were in the past. But
they also meant what they thought of themselves in the present and what they wanted to
be. The constant mobilization of the ―Taíno‖ trope in this century to express different
nationalist projects is an example of this process of intellectualizing the Other. Therefore,
there is a relationship between the elites‘ political projects and how they defined the
―Taínos.‖ Some romanticized this Other as rebels of the colonial government to either
justify or criticize the Spanish colonialism, depending on their proposals. Others
reproduced the notion of the noble savage and their barbarism to justify the Spanish
colonialism. Furthermore, these interpretations were constantly shifting and conflating,
reflecting the tensions, conflicts and discussions of the period.
Conclusion
Throughout this chapter I have tried to depict the context in which the nationalist
ideological debates occurred under the Spanish colonial government. During the 19th
century, the appropriation of the mestizaje discourse by local elites as a self-defining tool,
and its constant rearticulation showed the nationalist ideological battle in relation to the
metropolis. This process was contingent on the internal circumstances of the island, the
political struggles between local elites, and the circumstances of the metropolis. In this
47
process, the three ―racial‖ categories Taíno, Spaniard, and African were reasserted as the
building blocks of the Puerto Rican nation. Even though there is no consensus among the
elites to define the nation, all of them use the same general formula of mestizaje. Only the
Taíno, the Spaniard and the African ―racial‖ categories are included in this definition.
The struggles about defining a national identity occurred in relation to the political
interests of the elites with the metropolis. In this way, the mestizaje discourse was
constantly reinterpreted by portraying its ―racial‖ components in different ways and with
different meanings.
The ―Taíno‖ invention was a central stage of struggle among elites during this
period, as I have shown. In the 16th
century, it served as a tool for colonization by
Spaniards. In the 19th
century, it was appropriated and discursively reconstructed by local
elites to support their particular interests and self-perceptions. But, as Sued-Badillo
(1978) argues, during this process of self-definition not even radical separatists
questioned either the veracity of the existence of ―Taínos‖ in the pre-Columbian past or
the idea of the noble savage constructed by the Spaniards. The qualifications of ―Taínos‖
by separatists and most liberals were very romantic. They gave to this symbol new
meanings—meanings that represented their political platforms of political independence,
assimilation, or autonomy. But the constructive aspect of this trope was never questioned
by the elites who mobilized mestizaje discourse. However, the confrontational
mobilization of this ―Taíno‖ trope among elites reflects the centrality of this construct in
the process of national identity formation. Consequently, ideological battles between
those elites who preferred independence from those who did not were principally
manifested through this construct.
48
In sum, these three ―racial‖ essentialisms became discursively accepted as the
elemental heritages of the Puerto Rican national identification discourse. For this reason,
I argue that the depictions of Cajiga and the IPRC that I introduced at the beginning of
this chapter are prevalent representation of this constrained definition of Puerto
Ricanness, which was appropriated by local elites during the 19th
century. As we will see
in the next chapter, this mestizaje discourse was continuously used for different
ideological and political purposes under the new colonial government.
In the next chapter, I discuss the socio-economic and political changes that the
new colonial government brought to the island. As a result of many transformations, the
development of nationalisms took a specific course. The 19th
-century political struggles
became irrelevant with this new authority. Yet, through the process of negotiating a
national identity within this new colonial context, a general formula of Puerto Ricanness
that emphasized the cultural aspect of the nation over the jurisdictional aspect and
accentuated the ―Hispanic heritage‖ was institutionalized. Embedded in this, a particular
understanding of ―Taíno heritage‖ was also institutionalized. This interpretation and the
different mobilizations of the ―Taíno‖ trope of the first half of the 20th
century will be
analyzed.
49
Chapter III: Constructing the Taíno symbol into a trademark of Puerto Ricanness:
the 20th
century
Introduction
The development of nationalisms among Puerto Rican intellectuals during the 20th
century can be described in two phases. The first phase was characterized by a heated
debate among elites that centered on lobbying for the improvement of the socio-economic
conditions of the island with the new colonial government, which involved ideological
struggles around the definition of Puerto Ricans vis-à-vis the ―U.S. culture.‖ The second
phase of nationalist discussions occurred after a cultural nationalism was officialized in
1952, which moved the discussion of nation formation and definition to a cultural
domain. As part of these discussions, the ―Taino‖ trope was mobilized by local elites to
put forward their political agendas. This chapter explores the context of national debates
of the first half of the 20th
century until a cultural nationalism was institutionalized37
.
Initially, elites with varying political agendas entered into a heated debate about
how to improve the material conditions of the island during the first half of the century as
a reaction to the detrimental social, political, economic and ideological transformations
that accompanied the new colonialism. This intense internal ideological struggle, ushered
37
National debates and ―Taino‖ tropes mobilizations after the institutionalization of a cultural nationalism
will be introduced in chapter IV.
50
in by a disillusion with the new socio-economic and political conditions in the island, was
constrained by the political and economic intentions of the intentions with the island.
Thus, nationalist projects were discussed and developed by elites in a repressive political
environment in which they had little power. This first phase is characterized, then, by
very restricted but animated negotiations and manifestations of nationalisms among
Puerto Rican elites. However, as a reaction to the international opinion about colonialism,
and in response to lobbying of Puerto Rican political leaders, the U.S. colonial
government eventually granted more local political autonomy to the island and sponsored
a variety of development projects. One of the results of these changes was the concession
of Commonwealth political status. The Commonwealth of 1952 permitted among other
things the right of Puerto Ricans to select and organize their local governmental
administration. However, Puerto Ricans remained subject to all federal laws as U.S.
citizens. The U.S. government maintained sovereignty over the island, and Puerto Ricans
still have limited influence on the metropolitan decisions about the island nor can they
vote for the U.S. president.38
With increased local political autonomy, the first locally-
elected Puerto Rican governor institutionalized and intensively promoted a cultural
nationalism through the foundation of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture (IPRC). The
IPRC, then, became the state institution that promoted, regulated and fomented this form
of nationalism. This political agenda regulated and limited in many ways the debates
about national identification among intellectuals, political leaders and the popular classes.
Yet, it did not stop the conflicts and discussions about how to define or express Puerto
Ricanness. As Dávila (1997:3-5) argues, the institutionalization and popularization of
cultural nationalism does not mean that debates about national identifications perished. In
38
For more information about the 1952 Commonwealth, see Scarano (1993): 732-735.
51
her analysis, she concludes that the construction of ―culture‖ as an element of self-
identification only means that the basis for nationalist struggles moved from the political
realm to the sphere of ―culture‖ and cultural politics due to the repressive colonial politics
that prevail in Puerto Rico (3-5).
This cultural nationalism, in which ―culture‖ rather than the state is considered
representative of the nation, dominates the nationalist ideological battles of the second
half of the 20th
century. As this dominant nationalist discourse has been promoted
through regulative institutions—such as the IPRC, its regional centers, and the public
educational system—and through social practices, self-understandings of Puerto Ricans
has been shaped. Nevertheless, cultural nationalism has also become the arena for
conflicts and negotiation over ―the content of culture and its most appropriate
representatives‖ (Dávila 1997:16). Although I will touch upon the effects and struggles
that developed with the institutionalization of cultural nationalism, the period of change
in sovereignty and the first half of the 20th
century is the most significant for this thesis.
The social, political and economic transformations that occurred during this period led to
the institutionalization of this particular form of nationalism. The associated political and
ideological debates became the foundations for the dominant type of nationalism that still
prevails on the island. Thus, this chapter will focus on the contextualization of this
period, emphasizing the events that led to the foundation of the IPRC and the
institutionalization of cultural nationalism.
Three ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ Puerto Rican heritages figures permanently in this
new ideological battle. As we will see, the definitions and understandings of these three
building blocks of Puerto Ricanness correlated with the varying political interests of the
52
actors involved in relation to the U.S colonial power. Among the three, the ―Taíno‖ trope
continued to serve as an anticolonial tool for many separatist intellectuals. However, as I
will discuss, another essentialism was also mobilized as representative of the Puerto
Rican nation by many intellectuals: the ―Jíbaro.‖ This essentialist category acquired
anticolonial overtones in opposition to the U.S. colonial government. Although both
―Taíno‖ and ―Jíbaro‖ tropes served as anticolonial discursive tools to define Puerto
Ricans against the metropolis, only ―Taíno‖ linked Puerto Ricans to the territory as the
only nontransplanted population after colonization. This understanding was constantly
mobilized by many Puerto Ricans to reassert their legitimacy over the island and their
right to self-governance. Therefore, we can explain the broadly accepted need to
incorporate ―Taíno culture‖ in all nationalist projects, including the dominant cultural
nationalist discourse, and the constant identifications of Puerto Ricans with ―Taínos‖
throughout the 20th
century until this day. The indigenous element as a tool for a
national/cultural identity authentication is crucial, as we have seen, for all mestizaje
discourses in Latin America, and for most nationalist projects (Duany 2006:55-56;
Friedman 1992:843-845).
Surveying the Political, Ideological and Socio-Economic Terrain of the first half of
20th
Century
Events during the last years of the 19th
century prompted U.S. military
intervention in the political conflict between Cuba and Spain. During the last quarter of
the 19th
century, Cuban rebels organized revolts and wars against the Spanish colonial
government as a tactic to obtain their independence. Simultaneously, the U.S.
53
government has been discussing its political, military and economic expansion to the
Caribbean and Pacific islands from the 1880s. Nurtured by an ideology of Manifest
Destiny,39
the U.S. government saw the Cuban-Spanish conflict as an opportunity to
intervene and obtain the remaining Spanish colonies. Consequently, the U.S. government
constantly threatened Spain with military intervention in the conflict, and support of the
Cuban rebels. But it was not until 1898—after the anonymous bombardment of the U.S.
Maine ship—that the U.S. declared war on Spain. After a few months, Spain was
defeated, and Cuba, the Philippines and Puerto Rico were conceded to the U.S. through
the Paris Treaty of 1898. This was done without consulting any Puerto Rican.
As a result of this war, Cuba obtained its independence with the partial
intervention of the U.S. government while Puerto Rico remained a colony. This was a
disillusion for many Puerto Rican elites who saw the U.S. intervention as their ticket to
freedom, and to political, social and economic prosperity. A group of exiled separatists
who lived in the U.S. helped the U.S. government to plan its invasion of Puerto Rico
since they believed that the island would be better off as a state of the U.S.40
In addition,
most liberals and local proprietors believed that the local economy would improve
through total political assimilation to the U.S. (Scarano 1993:557). Even popular classes
and workers helped the U.S. army to invade some towns in the island and welcomed their
arrival (Scarano 1993:556).41
But, although at the beginning the U.S. army painted an
39
The Manifest Destiny doctrine argued that the civilized countries were entitled by God, history and
nature to rule over the uncivilized and barbaric countries. 40
For example, Dr. Jose Julio Henna, Roberto H. Todd, and Manuel Besosa believed that Puerto Rico
could obtain its independence by becoming a federal state of the U.S. This is understandable as a tactic to
separate from Spain, which was seen as retrograde in comparison with the admirable U.S. constitution and
its liberal thought (Scarano 1993:530). Henna and Todd gave information about the Spanish defenses in
Puerto Rico to Washington (Scarano 1993:552). 41
Anti-Spanish sentiments among the popular classes were not new. During the 1880s and 1890s some
Spanish resistance was observed in the countryside. Boycott societies frequently assaulted and burnt the
54
image of liberation from the Spanish colonial government,42
neither annexation nor
independence was ever achieved.
Disillusion was also provoked by the loss of the autonomic constitution that was
granted by Spain in 1897, and by the worsening of the material and social conditions on
the island. During the final 22 years of Spanish colonialism, the island was in economic
crisis due to the intensification of capitalism, the displacement of workers from their
subsistence lands, the inflation in the cost of imported products, the spread of diseases,
and the devastation wrought by hurricanes and tropical storms.43
In this context, the
Autonomist Party—headed by the liberal Luis Muñoz Rivera—decided to negotiate
loyalty to the Liberal Fusionist Party of Spain if they granted the autonomy to the island
once in power. Sagasa, the leader of the Liberal Fusionist Party, fulfilled his promise
once in power. However, the concession of the autonomic constitution to Cuba and
Puerto Rico was a strategy to calm down the Cuban revolutionaries and the U.S. threats
of helping Cuba, and of invading the Philippines and Puerto Rico. This autonomic
constitution established the right of Puerto Ricans to have a locally-elected government
which represented the Spanish Crown and Spanish constitution. It also granted Puerto
Ricans Spanish citizenship. Yet, the Spanish government retained authority over the
justice system, the local navy and army, and diplomatic matters on the island (Scarano
1993:541). After the U.S. military invasion, however, this autonomic constitution became
null.
plantations and proprietors‘ structures and materials. Although their members are unknown it is believed
that they were workers since they usually incinerated the worker‘s Journals (Scarano 1993:522). 42
See General Miles‘ proclaim of 1898 in Scarano 1993:557, and Urciuoli 1996:41-42. 43
Around 27 storms and hurricanes passed through the island during the 19th
-century
(http://www.linktopr.com/huracan_list.html).
55
To complicate matters, the socio-economic atmosphere of the island deteriorated
under the first years of U.S. colonialism. Before the war there was misery among the
majority of the population; however the socio-economic and political transformations of
the period worsened the living conditions of most Puerto Ricans. In first place, Puerto
Rico was economically deprived during the war with the economic and political
abandonment of Spain. Secondly, under the U.S. military government (1898-1900),
Puerto Rican export products were still considered foreign products in the U.S. and the
so-called free trade between P.R. and the U.S. was not established immediately. In
addition, coffee and tobacco products, which were consumed primarily by Spain, Cuba
and other European countries, became more expensive in these places due to the import
taxes that were assigned to them now as foreign products. Another cause of socio-
economic stress to Puerto Ricans was the San Ciriaco hurricane (1899) which caused the
death of thousands and destroyed plantations and structures, leaving many unemployed
and exposed to diseases (Scarano 1993:565-566). Furthermore, the provincial money that
had been used in Puerto Rico since 1895 was devaluated. This meant that Anglo-
American investors could now buy lands and plantations for a cheaper price and control
the economy of the island. After 1900, then, the U.S. colonial government—established
under the Foraker Law44
—implanted policies that benefited and promoted the investment
of U.S. capitalists in sugar and tobacco plantations.45
Most of these capitalists lived on
44
The Foraker Law (1900) was the law that imposed and organized a colonial government in the island. It
established a centralized government whose delegates were assigned by the President of the U.S. As a
result, local matters became under the total control of the metropolis. 45
One such policy was the exemption of import taxes for the tobacco and sugar products only, which were
the industries that U.S. capitalists preferred. The coffee industry, which was the stronger economic sector
by the end of the 19th
-century, was weakened through the increase in production costs with the U.S. import
taxes, and the competition with other producers. Another example of the privileges that U.S. investments
enjoyed was the concession of governmental permits to use the government train tracks, many ports and
other public enterprises. See Scarano 1993:588.
56
the mainland and visited the island on few occasions. The result of these policies was the
almost complete elimination of small local farmers and the subsistence economy,
growing dependence on import products at elevated prices, a concentration of capital in
absent owners, and the transformation of the working class into waged laborers. Whereas
in the earlier colonialism, Jíbaros worked when they needed to work and survived by
consuming, exchanging and selling their harvests and cattle, their displacement from their
lands under U.S. colonialism caused their total dependency on waged labor. This waged
labor was not always available in that it was seasonal and contingent with the demand. In
consequence, the Puerto Rican economy became a dependent, capitalist, and export-
agrarian economy.
Some local proprietors benefited from this intensive capitalism. Although most of
them lost their lands and resources, the transformation of the working class into waged
labor and the governmental support of the sugar and tobacco industry helped some local
plantation owners to modernize and expand their machinery and resources. Still, the
majority of the plantation owners were foreigners. As Scarano (1993:588) reports, by
1931 the 10% of the total wealth of Puerto Rico belonged to absentee owners, and 80-
85% of the tobacco industry was controlled by absentee companies. Although some
reforms eventually benefited small businesses and local production, this trend of a
dominance of absentee companies maintained throughout all the century (for more
information, see http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/852/First_with_
FDI:__Puerto_Rico.html).
At the same time as economic conditions deteriorated, investment in health
facilities, hospitals and vaccination programs contributed to an increase in the Puerto
57
Rican population increased exponentially. As a consequence, many Puerto Ricans had to
migrate to island cities, the metropolis and the Pacific in search of work. In particular,
throughout the first half of the 20th
century, the island economy was characterized with
insufficient employment and housing, and the products for consumption were usually
unaffordable. Moreover, after the World War I, there was a demand of cheap labor in the
U.S. that needed to be satisfied. Thus, many Puerto Ricans were recruited by U.S.
companies to work in the metropolis. This population flow continued throughout the 20th
century until today. Notably these migrants usually circulate between the metropolis and
the island. Hence, their experiences have an impact on the ideological discussions on the
island, in particular discourses of identification.46
In similar fashion, U.S. colonial political and economic policies were influenced
and reinforced by U.S. preconceptions about Puerto Ricans. Although there is not a
singular U.S. opinion about Puerto Ricans, there are some common shared perceptions
that shaped the way Puerto Ricans were portrayed. A broadly shared notion of Anglo-
American ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ superiority is expressed in Manifest Destiny and in the
pickaninnies depictions47
(Santiago-Valles 1999; Scarano 1993:535-539, 569-570). The
inferiority of Puerto Ricans was taken for granted at the time of governing the island.
Conditions of misery on the island, the lack of education, and the apparent lack of Puerto
Rican resistance to U.S. colonialism were used as evidence of their inferiority and their
need of U.S. intervention and governance. Even perceptions of the Puerto Rican
46
See Jorge Duany‘s (1996, 2002) works on Puerto Rican transnationalism. Also Scarano 1993:757-764. 47
U.S. intervention in this conflict was portrayed as necessary based on U.S. perception of Puerto Rican as
inferior. The pickaninnies caricatures are a good example of this. These caricatures of the Caribbean and
Pacific islands portrayed them as black children being patronized and ‗protected‘ by the U.S, which was
represented by Uncle Sam. They promoted a particular view of Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines: as
blacks, children, inferior and ignorant. (See Santiago-Valles 1999; Scarano 1993:538-539; Urciouli 1996:
41-47).
58
personality were sometimes used to this purpose,48
and a paternalist language was used in
referring to Puerto Ricans (Scarano 1993:567-571). Urciuoli (1996:47) argues that
colonial economic, political, educational, and social policies were shaped by the
―savage/order dichotomy‖ (read also Santiago-Valles 1994:77-226). Puerto Ricans were
considered savages who could achieve democracy only by learning U.S.-imposed rules of
order. Based on these perceptions, Americanization policies and projects were established
on the island on the basis of the need of Puerto Ricans to be protected, educated and
directed by the ―U.S. superior culture‖ (Scarano 1993:570).49
Rodríguez-Morazzani
(1996:152-153) maintains that many North American analysts that visited the island
analyzed the Puerto Rican ―race‖ as a sociopathology who needed to be addressed by
transforming ―the dysfunctional aspects of Puerto Rican ―community‖ life.‖
As a result, the island was subordinated ideologically, socially, politically and
economically to the U.S. colonial government. The disillusion provoked by these
conditions among elites created a tense political and ideological debate that once again
aligned around the three political agendas that have defined the politics of the island to
this day: assimilation, autonomic power, and independence. In the first years of the new
colonialism, most political leaders wanted to assimilate to the U.S. Scarano (1993:626)
refers to the local politics of this period as accommodationist since there was little
48
See, for instance Duany‘s (1996) discussion of William Bryan‘s (1900) ―Our islands and their peoples,‖ a
photograph collection that documents Bryan‘s perception of the conditions and lifestyles of the island of
Puerto Rico. Duany‘s (1996) and Thompson‘s (2007) critiques of Bryan‘s collection brings to the forefront
the U.S. perception of Puerto Ricans as inferior and in need of political intervention. 49
An example of an Americanization project is the development of the public educational system on the
island to teach Puerto Ricans the English language and the history of the United States (Urciuoli 1996:47-
49). Through such educational policies, the colonial government wanted to teach Puerto Ricans Anglo-
American values. In fact, the first Puerto Rican history book published and used under the U.S.
colonialism—Miller‘s (1922) Historia de Puerto Rico—narrated the heroic arrival of the U.S. to the island.
This book was used in schools for more than four decades (Sued-Badillo 1978:12). For more information
about the debates that emerged on the island in response to these educational policies, see Barreto (2001)
and Epstein (1970).
59
resistance from local political leaders. In fact, the local Republican Party, which
promoted the assimilation to the U.S. and was the most loyal collaborator of the colonial
regime, won elections until 1904. However, with the elites‘ loss of political influence
over local issues, the loss of lands and resources by local plantation owners, and with the
worsening of the material and social conditions of the workers, many local leaders and
intellectuals struggled to negotiate with the U.S. colonial government for more political
and economic power.50
Among the claims that most political leaders made was the
definition of the political status. Most of them still wanted the statehood or assimilation
because they saw it as the only way to obtain political freedom and economic prosperity.
Still, a growing sector of elites started to push for independence of the island, even as a
second option (Scarano 1993:630-636). In fact, the first organized political party that
proposed the independence, the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, was founded in 1922.
Negotiation with the colonial government was, however, a difficult task in light of
U.S. government interests in the production of cheap labor and the creation of an export
monopoly under a colonial government. Having very little political influence over these
policies, elites could not do much to change this environment. For instance, despite the
fact that the Jones Act of 1917 conceded American citizenship to all Puerto Ricans and
introduced some changes in the organization of the colonial government giving local
political leaders more influence in the decisions over the island, the decisions were
always subject to the interests of the U.S. Congress.
The Great Depression of the 1930s intensified local desires for reform and more
political power. This decade was characterized by a large scale migration of Puerto
50
Among these leaders, workers and labor unions played a crucial role. During this time, they founded and
associated with political parties in the island, and had their own newspaper (Scarano 1993:636-642).
60
Ricans to the U.S. due to the worsening of the island‘s economy. Many U.S. companies
were paralyzed, others went bankrupt, and the commercial trade between the U.S. and
Puerto Rico, on which the importation of subsistence products relied, practically stopped.
Consequently, the Puerto Rican population was submerged in total misery. The prices on
imported products increased, while unemployment was on the rise. This provoked
insurgencies among the working classes who complained about the lack of work and the
bad conditions of the remaining working positions. To this, we should add the pass of the
San Ciprian hurricane in 1932, which destroyed buildings and killed hundreds of people,
and the 1933-1934‘s workers‘ and nationalists‘ strikes which provoked acts of violence
and deaths. These social, political and economic problems sparked a discussion about the
national identity of Puerto Ricans among political leaders and intellectuals.
Questions centered on the national identity of Puerto Ricans first emerged among
a group of writers called the 30s Generation.51
As a response to Americanization
ideologies and policies and the desire of some locals to assimilate to U.S. ―culture,‖ these
writers worked to distance themselves and the Puerto Rican nation from the metropolis.
In these writings, Puerto Ricans were represented with a history that started with Spanish
colonization and the intermixture of ―Taíno,‖ ―Spaniard‖ and ―African‖ ―races‖ and
―cultures.‖52
In other words, they proposed that Puerto Ricans could not be Americans
because Puerto Ricans were mestizos. In this way, they distanced the nation from the
U.S. and allied it with other Latin American countries, which were also forwarding
51
A nationalist expression emerged through the hands of writers such as Luis Lloréns Torres (1876 –
1944), Nemesio Canales (1878-1923), Virgilio Dávila (1869-1943), Antonio S. Pedreira (1899-1939), and
Tomás Blanco (1897-1975). 52
For an example of this celebratory history linking Puerto Rico with other Latin American nations and
distancing it from U.S., see Luis Llorens Torres‘s poems ―La canción de las Antillas‖ (1929) and ―A Puerto
Rico‖ (1914).
61
nationalist claims.53
This view was also a response to the definitions of the Puerto Rican
personality that came from politicians such as José Celsio Barbosa,54
who proposed that
the Puerto Rican character could develop only through Americanization (Scarano
1993:629).
The Puerto Rican personality was described as anti-capitalist and agrarian. Thus,
these authors argued that U.S. colonialism was extinguishing the Puerto Rican values.
―Jíbaros,‖ who were intellectualized by these writers as the embodiment of these values,
became the representative of the Puerto Rican nation (Guerra 1998:8-10)55
. The ―Jíbaro‖
was therefore described as the symbol of the Puerto Rican ―race‖ and ―culture‖ who
could not survive the aggressive capitalist values of U.S. ―culture.‖ It is interesting that
―Jíbaros‖ were actually considered to be disappearing as a living group of peoples. Thus,
in order to recover and recollect this Puerto Rican past, many writers published books
that recounted and celebrated ―Jíbaro‖ life (Guerra 1998:67-121). But this identification
with the peasants and peasants‘ lifestyle was not new. As we saw, in the 19th
century,
many elites romanticized the countryside lifestyle and values as representations of Puerto
Rican nation (Scarano 1993:496-508). Furthermore, many 19th
-century local intellectuals
focused on the description of ―Jíbaros‖ customs as the indigenous culture of the island
(see for an example of this romanticized image of peasants Manuel Alonso‘s El Gibaro,
published in 1845). Some politicians of this period even appropriated the identity of
―Jíbaros‖ to criticize the Spanish colonial government and their oppositional political
53
See, for instance, the case of Cuba during the 1930s, when a group of nationalists rebelled against the
Machado government (De la Fuente 2001: 175-209). 54
José Celsio Barbosa was the leader of the Republican Party on the island who promoted absolute
assimilation with the United States. 55
This trope became the symbol of the PDP (Popular Democratic Party) since the 1940s (Córdova 2005).It
was also officialized as the embodiment of mestizaje and Puerto Ricanness in 1952. Contemporary popular
classes use it for a variety of political purposes (Guerra 1998).
62
parties, and ―to advance a particular socioeconomic and political—that is, class—project‖
(Scarano 1996:1403). Also the ―Jíbaro‖ trope appeared in the previous century in
entertainment and educational oral folktales such as the stories of Juan Bobo presented in
the form of a cunning peasant child who, by acting stupid, deceives everyone to get what
he wants (Scarano 1993:346-347; 1996:1425-1426). These stories have been analyzed as
a counter-discourse coming from the rural population against derogatory perceptions of
local ―modernizing, rationalistic elites‖ from the 18th
century (Scarano 1996:1425). In
fact, most local elites described the peasantry or ―Jíbaros‖ in derogatory terms (lazy,
vagrant, barbaric, ignorant, stupid and with a lot of vices) based on their perceived
barbaric and indomable character (Scarano 1996:1415, 1414-1426). These derogatory
meanings, as well as other positive meanings, have survived to this day, although, given
the ambiguity of this trope, they resurface in different contexts.56
Nevertheless, in the 20th
century, the peasant lifestyle was intellectualized by elites in other way: in reaction to
intense U.S. capitalism and Americanization policies,57
the ―Jíbaros‖ were described as
the embodiment of the Puerto Rican culture, representing ―cultural values‖ believed to be
authentically Puerto Rican (Guerra 1998:45-121).
These ideas permeated the political discussions among local elites of the first half
of the 20th
century. In particular, this national identity discussion influenced an emergent
generation of young politicians who wanted to solve the current socio-economic
56
Nowadays, the ―Jibaro‖ trope is not only a symbol of national pride but also used in quotidian
conversation to express stupidity and ignorance. 57
However, as discussed by Corchado-Juarbe (1994), the need of these intellectuals to search for their
―roots‖ and assert their Puerto Ricanness had to do not only with the politico-economic and social
transformations of the time, but also with the influence of international intellectuals, in particular with the
Spanish Generation of ‗98 and the Spanish generation of 1927 (p.130-135). They were also probably
influenced by a more global intellectual interest in peasants that also developed elsewhere as the symbol of
the nation, as a response to the perceived degenerative consequences of industrialism and modernity and
romantic notions of the nation (Schwartz 2006:30-31, 33, 40-41).
63
problems through profound reforms. Scarano (1993:685) affirms that discourses of
national identification that emerged from intellectuals of the Great Depression directed
the political agendas and rhetoric of a new generation of political leaders, inspiring them
to follow the reformist works of 19th
-century liberals. One of their goals was to solve the
colonial status of the island. As such they sought to change the Jones Act of 1913 which
established the colonial relationship of Puerto Rico with the U.S. In addition, most of
them condemned the type of economy that predominated in the island and the working
conditions that U.S. companies provided to Puerto Rican laborers. They wanted an
improvement in living and working conditions on the island and the development of a
national economy. Many of these political leaders who advocated for socio-economic and
political change were separatists or radical autonomists, and understood the Puerto Rican
nation as different from ―U.S. culture.‖ Their nationalisms differed in relation to their
political agendas, as we will see, but all shared an understanding of Puerto Rico as a
mestizo nation with a long history that started with the arrival of Christopher Columbus
to the island. Included among these new political leaders were Vicente Géigel Polanco,
Luis Muñoz Marín, and Pedro Albizu Campos, of which the last two became the most
renowned politicians of the 20th
century.
As a result of these tense ideological and political struggles, some reformist
politicians successfully lobbied and obtained economic reforms that benefited the lives of
many Puerto Ricans. From the 1930s until the 1960s, Puerto Rico went through a phase
of considerable social, economic and political reform. Still, reforms were possible not
only because of local political pressure over the U.S. Congress, but also because of
international pressure over the U.S. government and U.S. financial prosperity after World
64
War II. During this period colonialism was condemned by international public opinion
since many colonies of the world had obtained or were struggling for their independence.
Even in Puerto Rico, many separatist groups revolted against the colonial government
and threatened the U.S. Congress with war because they believed that Puerto Rico should
be an independent state.58
These revolts caused many deaths and political violence and
repression, which had survived to this day.59
In this tense political and ideological
environment, the U.S. Congress permitted and promoted socio-economic and political
reforms in its colonies to look good internationally. In addition, Grosfoguel (2003:3-4)
describes the interest of the U.S. government in improving the socio-economic conditions
of the island as part of the new development ideology that drove the U.S. government
international intervention.
Among the negotiated reforms, there are the creations of the Puerto Rico
Emergency Relief Administration (PRERA, 1933); the Puerto Rico Reconstruction
Administration (PRRA, 1935); the Lands Law (Ley de Tierras, 1941); the Puerto Rican
Electric Power Authority (Autoridad de Fuentes Fluviales, 1941); the Planning Group
58
During this period there were many local pro-independence revolts against the U.S. colonial government.
In turn, there was a lot of political repression against them. For instance, during the Robert Hayes Gore
(1933-1934) government, pro-independence nationalists could not hold any governmental position
(Scarano 1993:688-690). Moreover, Pedro Albizu Campos, the president of the Nationalist Party, was
constantly imprisoned until his death even though he was never directly connected to any rebellion or
violent manifestation (Scarano 1993:693-698, 778-779). His incarcerations were due to his nationalist
public discourses, which were believed to cause the nationalist revolts and strikes. The ideology of this
political party was very radical because it believed in the use of any kind of tactic to obtain independence.
Thus, inspired by him, many used guns and caused violent acts. Killings between the police and nationalists
were frequent, such as the Río Piedras Massacre (1935), the Coronel Riggs murders (1935), and the Ponce
Massacre (1937). By mid-century, around the same time Commonwealth status was approved, many
nationalists rebelled against the local government, and others assaulted the White House in Washington
(Scarano 1993:729-732). This augmented the nationalist repression with such measures as the 52 Law (Ley
Mordaza, 1948-1957), and the Carpeteo Act (U.S. Federal espionage of pro-independence groups, which is
believed to be still prevalent). 59
On the violent killing of the Macheteros leader Filiberto Ojeda Rios on 2005 by the F.B.I., see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filiberto_Ojeda_R%C3%ADos;
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/jimenez; and http://www.virtualboricua.org/Docs/for01.html.
65
(Junta de Planificacion, 1942); Puerto Rican Industrial Promotion (Compania de Fomento
Industrial, 1942); the Elective Governor Law (Ley de Gobernador Electivo, 1948); and
the 600 Law (Ley 600, 1950).60
These amendments improved the local economy through
the development of local production industries, the redistribution of lands to displaced
families and small farmers, and imposed land limits on foreign owners. These were
heavily opposed by U.S. capitalists since they worked against their interests and against
the ideology of laissez faire that prevailed in the U.S. However, until 1947 these reforms
were approved by the U.S. congress with the lobbying of local politicians such as Luis
Muñoz Marín.
Luis Muñoz Marín was the son of Luis Muñoz Rivera, the leader of the
Autonomist Party who negotiated the autonomy of Puerto Rico with Spain at the end of
the 19th
century. In this period, Muñoz Marín was the main voice promoting and
campaigning for reform, first from the senate, and later from the governorship. After the
Law of Elective Governor was granted by the U.S. Federal government, Muñoz Marín,
who was very popular among the masses, became the first locally-elected governor of the
island, and was repeatedly re-elected until 1964. His popularity among workers and
popular classes was due in part to his charismatic personality. But his influence and
constant lobbying on Washington, which brought all these reforms, made him a venerated
figure among the masses.
Along with reformists of this time, Muñoz Marín wanted to define the political
status of the island. His position, nonetheless, changed after 1947. Initially, the Popular
Democratic Party (PPD), the political party that he and others founded, promoted the
60
This law permitted the assembly of a local committee that was going to write a constitution for the island
to define the political status. The consequence of this assembly was the 1952 Commonwealth Constitution.
66
island‘s independence. But because most workers desired assimilation61
, Muñoz Marín
focused on reforming the social and economic conditions of the island, and set aside his
interest in independence. In this way, the PPD gained the support of many separatists,
reformists and workers who wanted to see change. But after 1947, in a context of intense
nationalism and anticolonialism agendas in the island and all over the world, he started to
promote an autonomic formula: the Commonwealth. Under the 600 Law that was granted
by the U.S. Congress to solve the colonial situation of the island, the locally-organized
constitution assembly wrote and defined Commonwealth status, and in 1952 it was
approved by the U.S. Congress.62
Muñoz Marín‘s government also wanted to modernize and industrialize Puerto
Rico. To achieve this, the Operation Bootstrap (Operación Manos a la Obra, 1947) was
created under his governorship. This economic project offered economic incentives,
infrastructure, taxes exemption, and cheap laborers to U.S. companies. As a result, the
island‘s economy shifted from agriculture to manufacturing, and the manufacturing
sector changed from labor-intensive industries (like the manufacturing of tobacco, food
and leather) to capital-intensive industries (such as pharmaceuticals, electronics and
machinery). Therefore, after the 1950s, the island experienced an economic development
that was characterized by industrialization that relied on U.S. companies. This economic
growth was accompanied by urbanization projects and the development of tourism.
Hence, on the one hand, the PPD promoted the local economy by restricting the
61
This does not mean that workers did not organized against U.S. companies. During the 1930s-1970s,
labor unions and separatist groups frequently organized against them. However, the interests of these actors
never coincided. 62
This constitution allowed the U.S. to ask for the elimination of the island from the United Nations (UN)
list of world colonies. However, the political status of Puerto Rico is still under revision in the UN. See
Trias-Monge 1997:136-140.
67
privileges of absent companies through the 1941 Lands Law. Yet, on the other hand, it
reproduced an economy of dependence with the U.S.
In reaction to these industrialization measures, many intellectuals, including
Muñoz Marín, worried that the Puerto Rican values and personality could succumb. Since
they understood the Puerto Rican nation as opposed to the metropolis‘ ―cultural
values‖—which were allegedly permeating the Puerto Rican society—the local
government created a legal state institution to protect the Puerto Rican ―cultural values‖
and unique history. In 1955, the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture (IPRC) was created
under the 89 Law with the collaboration of such intellectuals as Enrique Laguerre (1906-
2005) and Ricardo E. Alegría (1921- ). Its purpose was to conserve, promote, preserve,
enrich and divulge ―the cultural values of the country of Puerto Rico‖ (Alegría,
1996:257). In addition, its role was also to define and promote the ―basic elements of our
culture‖ (iii). Consequently, mestizaje became the official identification discourse of the
Puerto Rican nation, and the ―Taíno,‖ the ―African‖ and ―Hispanic‖ ―heritages‖ were
defined and promoted as patrimonies of all Puerto Ricans. Moreover, the ―Jíbaro‖ trope
became the official trademark and embodiment of Puerto Ricanness (Guerra 1998).
Following intellectuals‘ discussions that started in the 1930s, Puerto Rican ―cultural‖
values and history were defined and institutionalized through the IPRC. In this way, this
state institution became an instrument for the political mobilization and
institutionalization of a particular view of Puerto Ricanness, transforming pre-existing
ideologies into normative conceptions (Dávila 1997).
In this process, the nation was identified mainly with ―culture‖ and not with an
independent state. Yet, this equation was not new. In the intense colonialism that
68
prevailed on the island, we have seen how 19th
- and 20th
- century politicians and
intellectuals mobilized their understandings of the nation for a variety of political
purposes (through the promotion of assimilationist nationalisms, autonomic nationalisms,
or separatist nationalisms), and not only for independence or separatist projects. Yet,
through the IPRC this equation became officialized. As a consequence, the discussions
about national identification were officially removed from the discussions about the
status of the island. For this reason, contemporary Puerto Ricans can consume and
celebrate a Puerto Rican national identity at the same time as supporting political projects
that promote the statehood of the island, its independence or none of them. In other
words, the contemporary debates about how to define the nation are officially placed on
the cultural domain through the state promotion of a cultural nationalism.63
Since my interest is to understand the process of selection of the ―Taíno‖ trope as
an authenticating tool of Puerto Ricanness, and to explore how ―Taíno culture‖ became
Puerto Rican and vice versa, I turn now to discuss the different uses of the ―Taíno‖
symbol among different actors during this period, and explore how an official national
discourse has described and interpreted the ―Taíno‖ trope. However, understanding the
context that led to institutionalization of cultural nationalism will prove helpful in
discussing mobilizations of the ―Taíno‖ trope. I, therefore, highlight the social, economic,
political and ideological events that shaped the construction of an official national
discourse in the first half of the 20th
century.
63
In her book, Dávila (1997) shows how the many different interpretations of how to express and define
the nation act in negotiation and conflict with this Institution, promoting the shifting in the content of the
official discourse. Yet, the IPRC has served as a regulatory institution that controls the content and how to
express the Puerto Rican national identity. This study is insightful in bringing the complex cultural
struggles among different agents on the island.
An introduction to the development of nationalist debates after the institutionalization of a cultural
nationalism—what I called the second phase (see introduction of this chapter)—is the topic of chapter IV.
69
Defining Puerto Ricans and the Noble Savage Construct
“There is a great danger in spreading the wrong concept [of “culture”], because
in any national society some elements can be conserved and survive…while the highest
values denaturalize and die. When we talk about “culture” that, as a nation, Puerto Rico
has, we should have present more profound and transcendental values…For being the
Puerto Rican “culture” a good that belongs to every Puerto Rican, and even the non-
Puerto Ricans that live with us, it is the duty of all individuals and institutions of the
country to defend it, to promote it and, more than anything, to know it. Those that know
more and better their fatherland will love it more and, thus, will serve it better.” (Alegría
1996:10-12)64
The change of sovereignty from Spain to the United States brought profound
changes at all levels of society. Although this new colonialism initially promised
improvement in the material, political, and economic dimensions of local life, it resulted
in the permanent establishment of an economic and political dependency. In addition, the
Puerto Rican population was ideologically constructed by the new colonial government
as unable to self-govern based on ideological preconceptions of the Other, which were
influenced by the Manifest Destiny and by the scientific racism of the 19th
century
(Santiago-Valles 1999; Scarano 1993:535-539; Urciuoli 1996:41-47). In this ideological
environment, many local political leaders and intellectuals felt disillusioned with the new
colonial government. Consequently, a tense national identification discussion developed
in the island, driven principally by local disputes about the new colonial status of the
island and its clear consequences. Yet, particular political agendas with the metropolis
were evident in these local ideological disputes. Thus, after the change of sovereignty, we
64
Ricardo E. Alegría is one of the founders and the director for the first 18 years of the IPRC. He designed
the IPRC emblem that was discussed on the previous chapter, defined the mission of the Institute, and
directed and developed many of its projects during this time. His understanding of the Puerto Rican culture
can be said to be inscribed in the mission of the Institute.
70
see a rearticulation of the mestizaje discourse by different actors who were responding to
the new colonial environment and their particular political interests with the metropolis.
The mestizaje discourse was mobilized by political leaders to promote different
forms of nationalisms. José Celsio Barbosa, for instance, believed that the Puerto Rican
nation and culture had to integrate completely to the American nation in order to see
progress at all levels of society. In his view, the Puerto Rican personality and history
would start only through political and cultural integration to the United States. For him,
mestizaje was the product of a retrograde past colonialism which it was possible to
overcome under the new hegemonic government. The United States was seen as a space
in which mulattoes and colored peoples had more opportunities and could progress. His
life exemplified this ideology. He was a middle-class Puerto Rican mulatto who went to
the United States to study. His experiences in the metropolis with other colored peoples
led him to admire the U.S., despite living there in the period of Jim Crow Laws and black
lynching in the south (Jiménez-Román 1996; Scarano1993:526-527, 575-576).
Nonetheless, he mobilized the mestizaje condition of Puerto Ricans to support and
promote statehood.65
Conversely, Luis Muñoz Marín mobilized the mestizaje discourse to entice the
popular classes and separatists intellectuals to its political party, and obtain power.
Inspired by the 30‘s Generation of writers and by the general need of socio-economic
change, he self-identified with the popular classes through the ―Jíbaro‖ trope, on the one
hand, and ideologically promoted the formation of a Puerto Rican nation-state, on the
other. These ideological strategies put him in power for more than 2 decades. Similar to
the understandings of the 30‘s Generation writers, Muñoz Marín believed that Puerto
65
For more information about the political life of Celsio Barbosa, see Jiménez-Román (1996).
71
Rico was a mestizo nation that had a long history, and this history needed to be protected
from the American capitalist values. As mentioned, although he changed his mind later
on his political career about the idea of forming a free nation-state, he pursued his
mission of conserving the Puerto Rican national/cultural values by founding the Institute
of Puerto Rican Culture. His ideological understandings of the Puerto Rican national
identification that resulted from the discussions of this time became normative
conceptions through the IPRC (for a more detailed discussion of this process see Davila
1997:60-98).
In contrast with Muñoz Marín, Pedro Albizu Campos mobilized the mestizaje
discourse to organize an ideological separatist struggle against the U.S. colonial
government. Although he was never directly linked to the radical political uprisings that
developed in the island, his political discourses were very radical and promoted armed
revolution. He also followed the 30‘s Generation Puerto Ricanness proposals, but his
emphasis was not on the ―Jíbaro‖ trope as the national marker but on Hispanidad in
general. In his view, the ―culture‖ inherited from the previous colonialism made Puerto
Ricans radically different from the ―U.S. culture.‖ Thus, he emphasized mestizaje as a
self-defining tool that revived the ―Hispanic heritage and culture.‖ This nationalist
proposal, however, did not attract popular classes and workers who were experiencing
opportunities to organize and demand for better working conditions and salaries in the
new colonial context.66
As exemplified with these three nationalist projects, the mestizaje discourse was
mobilized as a national identification trope in the new colonial context by different
66
For more information about Albizu Campos‘ ideas, see Santiago-Valles (2005) and Scarano (1993:692-
698).
72
actors. Nonetheless, mestizaje was rearticulated in all these political projects by
emphasizing the Hispanic cultural heritage and lifestyles that differentiate Puerto Ricans
from North Americans (West-Durán 2005:55).67
Puerto Rican ―culture‖ was defined as
either a previous era that was disappearing or as a future time within the United States.
The ―Jíbaro‖ came to represent a Puerto Rican past that was disappearing, and the
Hispanic heritage was emphasized as the defining trait of Puerto Ricanness. In this
context, the ―Taíno‖ and ―African‖ tropes continued to be ideologically marginalized.
But this did not mean that these tropes were not mobilized by some intellectuals or
groups to propose specific nationalist projects.68
Rather, the national identification
debates of this period centered on the Hispanic past vis-à-vis the American present.
Turning to the ―Taíno‖ trope, mobilizations during the first half of the 20th
century
showed continuities with 19th
-century understandings of the ―Taíno‖ construct.
Specifically, Sued-Badillo (1978) argues that the ―Taíno‖ trope became a discursive tool
for justifying or questioning the new colonialism. Local and U.S. historians, in particular,
reproduced the primitive, savage and submissive aspects of the ―Taíno‖ construct, which
reinforced many U.S. preconceptions of Puerto Ricans such as their incapacity of self-
governance (Sued-Badillo 1978:11-14).69
The reproduction of this understanding of the
―Taíno‖ construct, in his view, reinforced colonialist practices and policies in the island.
Yet, some local intellectuals who advocated for the island‘s independence revived the
67
Cultural aspects such as the Spanish language and the Catholic religion become tools of resistance
against the Americanization policies by some intellectualls. For the politics of language in Puerto Rico, see
Barreto (2001), Epstein (1970), and Urciuoli (1996). For the relationship between the Catholic Church and
the separatism in Puerto Rico during this period, see Scarano (1993:782-785). 68
For mobilizations of the ―African‖ construct during this period, see Fequiere (1996), Jiménez-Román
(1996), West-Durán (2005), and Zenón-Cruz (1975). 69
See Paul Miller‘s (1922) Historia de Puerto Rico, Bryan (1990), and Scarano (1993:567-571) for
examples of American understandings about the Puerto Rican population and its ancestors, including the
―Taínos.‖
73
―Taínos‖ as the legitimate owners of the island. For instance, Juan Antonio Corretjer‘s
poem Oubao Moin (1965) narrated and denounced the history of colonialism that
characterized the island since the arrival of Columbus and that ironically made possible
the Puerto Rican nation through mestizaje. The poem described the oppression that
Puerto Ricans have gone through. His narrative highlights the decimation of ―Taínos,‖
African slavery, and the cruel labor conditions in which Jíbaros and contemporary Puerto
Ricans in general have had to work. However, by highlighting the ―Taíno‖ element in the
title of the poem and on the figurative geographic descriptions, he reinforced the alleged
―Taíno‖ ownership of the Puerto Rican territory. In contrast, other poems such as
Agueybaná (1932) and Yerba Bruja (1957) celebrated the ―Taíno‖ resistance to the
Spanish colonialism and appropriated this trope to construct Puerto Rican heritage.
Most local writers were, however, barely mobilizing the ―Taíno‖ trope to question
the Americanization policies and ideologies. Since they were intellectualizing the
―Jíbaro‖ as the embodiment of Puerto Ricanness, we seldom find the rebel image of
―Taínos‖ that some 19th
-century intellectuals constructed.70
Most of them focused on the
―Jíbaro‖ construct, and whenever ―Taínos‖ were described, they were portrayed as noble
savages and identified with them in this respect. For instance, many local intellectuals
understood the allegedly ―Taíno‖ compliance and passivity as a reflection of their
kindness and nobility. Although this argument was developed as a way to self-define
against ―U.S. culture‖ and its predominant open racism, Sued-Badillo (1978) is correct in
condemning this interpretation as apologetic of the new colonialism. By reinforcing the
70
Exceptions to these were some poems written by Juan Antonio Corretjer (1908-1985), Francisco Cabrera
Manrique (1908-1978), Samuel Lugo (1905-1985), Evaristo Ribera Chevremont (1906-1976), Cesareo
Rosa Nieves (1901-1974), Luis Hernández Aquino (1907-1988), and María Mercedes Garriga (1908-).
These poets celebrate not only the ―Taíno‖ heritage but dedicate some of them to revive a Puerto Rican
―Taíno‖ past (see Corchado-Juarbe [1994:125-176] to learn more about these poets).
74
noble savage conceptualization of ―Taínos,‖ Puerto Ricans were presumed to be
submissive and passive as a result of being their descendants. This presumption was
already part of the ideological milieu with which the U.S. colonial government designed
its policies and projects in the island. However, these local understandings reinforced
them. This is characteristic of the writing of Antonio S. Pedreira (1899-1939). In his
work Insularismo (1934), he mobilizes the noble savage construct to explain the
unwillingness of Puerto Ricans for independence. With a geographic determinist
perspective, he argues that Puerto Ricans are passive, weak, and submissive because of
the island‘s geography and weather. Therefore, nothing produced in the island can self-
govern.
In response to this presumption, other local writers formulated a critique in which
the U.S. intervention is established as the event that shattered the ideological, material,
political, and social development that allegedly characterized the island by the end of 19th
century. In his work Prontuario historico de Puerto Rico (1935), Tomás Blanco, for
instance, describes the Puerto Rican population as one capable of self-governing, one on
its way to forming a free nation-state when interrupted by the U.S. invasion. Blanco‘s
work inspired a young generation of political leaders and intellectuals who wanted to see
change in the island. Motivated by it, Luis Muñoz Marín and Pedro Albizu Campos felt
the need to follow the 19th
-century mission of forming a free nation-state. This
ideological interpretation was not the predominant one, though. Insularismo, on the other
hand, became one of the most read national literatures in Puerto Rico (Scarano
1993:684). Its pessimism about the Puerto Rican personality echoed the frustrations of
the 30s generation and of many political leaders about the restrictive constant colonial
75
situation of the island and its consequences. But, interestingly, this ideological
explanation also reinforced the alleged need of the U.S. colonial intervention for Puerto
Ricans to develop.
The noble savage character of the indigenous populations of the island, including
―Taínos,‖ ―Spaniards,‖ ―Africans‖ and Puerto Ricans, was also explained through the
mestizaje discourse by local intellectuals. Mestizaje for many intellectuals reflected the
―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ tolerance of Puerto Ricans. This argument was used by many
writers of the 30‘s Generation, who explicitly condemned the open racism that
characterized the metropolis, and romanticized the Spanish colonialism (Guerra 1998:67-
121). This argument was also used by Ricardo E. Alegría and other founders of the IPRC.
Alegría, in particular, believed that the Puerto Rican personality and ―culture‖ was
characterized by such traits as hospitableness, industriousness, simplicity, and respect to
the authority, which were the result of a long history of harmonious mestizaje.71
Thus,
under his direction, and after a political heated debate,72
the harmonious ―racial‖ and
―cultural‖ democracy interpretation of the mestizaje discourse was officialized through
the IPRC during the 1950s.
In addition, the view of ―Taíno‖ and ―African‖ tropes as noble savages was
officialized through the IPRC. Similar to the Puerto Rican personality, they are also
presented as primitives, anti-modern, industrious, harmonious, and respectful to
authority. The officialization of such identical descriptions between the ―Taíno‖ and
―African‖ tropes and the Puerto Rican personality find its roots in the understandings of
71
For an example of his understanding of the Puerto Rican national/cultural identity, see his introduction to
the book ―Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña, 18 años hacienda historia‖ (1996:7-12). Also, explore
Hernandez‘s (2002) interview to Alegría. 72
To know more about the political discussions around the creation of the IPRC and its objectives, see
Alegría (1996:7-8) and Dávila (1997:38-52).
76
mestizaje as ―racial/cultural‖ tolerance of this period. Sued-Badillo (1978:1-32) finds this
Taínonization and Africanization of Puerto Ricans as part of the apologetic agenda of
most local intellectuals (1-32). However, from my point of view, we cannot ignore that
the alleged tolerant and submissive character of the Puerto Rican personality was the
result of the ideological frustration of many intellectuals to resist the U.S. ideological
presumptions about Puerto Ricans. In particular, Puerto Ricans were treated as black
savages who needed the U.S. intervention in order to develop. This U.S. attitude was
exemplified by the pickaninnies depictions of the Puerto Rican peoples (Santiago-Valles
1999; Scarano 1993:539), and by such books as ―Our Islands and their People‖ (Bryan
1990; Duany 1996:252-254; Thompson 2007). Therefore, the moralization of these
presumed Puerto Rican attitudes and personality by local elites became a discursive tool
of resistance. In other words, by transforming these negative values into positive traits
they became something to be proud of, and not ashamed. However, as we have seen, this
argument reinforced the U.S. presumption that Puerto Ricans could not self-govern.73
On the other hand, the IPRC presents the ―Hispanic heritage‖ as the civilized
aspect of the Puerto Rican population with such elements as the language, religion, and
technology. This interpretation is the result of the romanticization of ―Hispanic culture‖
that developed among intellectuals under the new colonialism. In this way, ―Hispanic
heritage‖ becomes prestigious in contrast with the other heritages. Nonetheless, this
official interpretation of Puerto Rican national/cultural identity does not completely
marginalize or obscure the ―Taíno‖ and ―African heritages.‖ In contrast to previous
73
The reinforcement of this attitude had consequences. For instance, most contemporary Puerto Ricans
believe that Puerto Rico would not be able to survive without the U.S. intervention. This is reinforced also
by comparing the island‘s socio-economic development with neighboring independent nations such as
Cuba, Haiti and Dominican Republic.
77
national proposals of mestizaje, the IPRC presents the ―Taíno‖ and the ―African
heritages‖ as important and significant as the ―Hispanic heritage.‖ Since Puerto
Ricanness is the result of harmonious mestizaje, the three selected ―cultural/racial‖
ancestors of the Puerto Rican nations/cultural identity have to be equally promoted. In
this sense, the IPRC developed also research and projects for the promotion of the
―Taíno‖ and ―African heritages.‖
In truth, however, there is unequal promotion of these heritages. ―Hispanic
heritage‖ has been the most emphasized in the new national/cultural identification (see
Figure 2). The ―Taíno‖ and ―African heritages‖ are still more marginalized, and
differently promoted through the IPRC. ―Taíno heritage‖ is the most promoted among the
two for various reasons. In first place, ―Taíno culture‖ is described by the IPRC as the
―first root‖ of Puerto Ricanness because they are the authentic owners of the island as
they were the only nontransplanted population. On the other hand, ―African heritage‖ is
described as the ―third and last root‖ based on the assumption that this is the last
transplanted culture on the island, and the least influential (Dávila 1997:70). Some
authors suggest that in response to the U.S. understanding of Puerto Ricans as blacks,
―Taíno heritage‖ acquired more value among intellectuals (Dávila 1997:70-71, 2006:39;
Duany 2006:57, 76). These authors argue that ―African heritage‖ became devalued under
the new colonialism to the point that previously considered ―African‖-inherited cultural
elements such as the güiro instrument, vocabulary and allegedly inherited-physical
characteristics became Taínonized. In this sense, many scholars understand that the
description of the Puerto Ricans as noble savages have been mainly associated locally
with the ―Taíno‖ trope in Puerto Rico (Duany 2006:76, Sued-Badillo 1978:26-27).
78
However, although the ―African heritage‖ has been historically minimized (Villagómez
2005), it is also entangled in this description of the Puerto Rican personality (Duany
2006:76).
Still, ―Taíno heritage‖ is more promoted by the IPRC than ―African heritage,‖
with particular emphasis on the notion of ―Taínos‖ as the authentic owners of the island.
As an example of this taken-for-granted understanding of ―Taínos,‖ I can mention
Ricardo Alegría, who describes ―Taíno culture‖ not only as an advanced cultural
population that lived peacefully before the arrival of Columbus, but also, for him, the
―Taíno‖ uprisings were a desperate measure to recover their land and their freedom
(Alegría 1973:53; See also Alegría 1974, 1986). ―Taíno heritage,‖ then, is what ties and
legitimizes all Puerto Ricans as owners of the island. It indigenizes, americanizes
(meaning the American continent), and antilleanizes Puerto Ricans (Corchado-Juarbe
1994:42-44). The poor promotion of the ―African heritage,‖ in contrast, reflects racist
ideologies and practices that resulted from an slave-based society and that are still well
embedded in the Puerto Rican society (González 1989; Jiménez-Román 1996;
Villagómez 2005; West-Durán 2005; Zenón 1975).
In sum, the ―Taíno‖ construct was mobilized during the first five decades of the
20th
century by local intellectuals as a discursive tool to rationalize or to challenge many
metropolitan preconceptions about Puerto Ricans and its accompanying Americanization
policies. Among these, the presumption of the weak character of Puerto Ricans was
reinforced through the notion of the noble savage of the indigenous peoples of Puerto
Rico. These indigenous peoples included not only ―Taínos‖ but also ―Africans,‖ and
mestizos. In particular, mestizaje was mobilized as a discursive tool to explain the
79
submissiveness of Puerto Ricans. It is for these reasons that there are so many similarities
between the descriptions of Puerto Ricans and the descriptions of the ―Taíno‖ and
―African‖ populations under the IPRC. However, as I have suggested, ―Taíno heritage‖
has more importance in IPRC projects. This heritage not only gives to the
national/cultural Puerto Rican myth a very old history, but also ties and authorizes as the
owners of the island the Puerto Rican population based on the assumption that ―Taínos‖
were the authentic owners of this territory.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I have tried to associate the socio-economic and political changes
that brought the U.S. colonial government to the local ideological struggles that
developed during the first half of the 20th
century. My argument is that many U.S.
preconceptions of the local population, which were reinforced by U.S. experiences on the
island and by Americanization policies, fostered a tense ideological debate within Puerto
Rico in which national character was debated. Disappointed with the new colonial
government and its social, economic, political and ideological consequences, many
intellectuals revived and romanticized prior colonialism. In the process, the ―Jíbaro‖
trope became the embodiment of the Puerto Rican culture, and mestizaje was
rearticulated once again as the national/cultural identification discourse. Interestingly, the
mestizaje discourse was not only used to criticize the new colonial state and to distance
Puerto Ricans from the new colonial culture. It was also used to reinforce the presumed
need of Puerto Ricans of a paternal-colonial government in order to develop. Thus, the
colonial status of the island was not only legitimized through the Commonwealth
80
Constitution of 1952, but also through the officialization of the IPRC‘s ideological
interpretation of mestizaje as ―racial/cultural‖ tolerance.
The ―Taíno‖ construct was also used to question and rationalize the presumed
incapacity of Puerto Ricans to self-govern. As we have seen, the notion of the noble
savage is embedded in many of the local understandings of ―Taínos,‖ ―Africans‖ and
Puerto Ricans. However, although this interpretation became normative through the
IPRC, not every intellectual understood both Puerto Ricanness and the ―Taíno culture‖ as
noble savages. Although in minority, some local writers mobilized the understanding of
the ―Taíno‖ trope as a rebel culture in the terms used by some 19th
-century intellectuals to
claim the sovereignty of the island. The poems of Juan Antonio Corretjer, for instance,
reflect this political mobilization. Nevertheless, most separatists and autonomist political
leaders mobilized mainly the ―Hispanic heritage‖ and the ―Jíbaro‖ trope to make political
claims to the metropolis in the first half of the 20th
century, rather than the ―Taíno‖ trope.
Later, as a result of local ideological disputes, the ―Taíno‖ trope was authenticated as the
―first cultural/racial root‖ of Puerto Ricanness through the IPRC.
In addition, and also as a consequence of this ideological debate, Puerto Ricans
became also Taínonized/Africanized, in particular, through the noble savage trope. Such
descriptions of Puerto Ricans as industrious, and tolerant and respectful to authority that
the IPRC promotes are also used to describe the ―Taíno‖ and ―African‖ ancestral cultures.
However, as mentioned before, the notion of the noble savage that is embedded in the
Puerto Rican personality is usually identified with the ―Taíno‖ trope, since it has been
given more value among local intellectuals. Influenced by the U.S. racist understandings
of Puerto Ricans, and by the already established local racism, the ―African heritage‖ has
81
been the least promoted by the IPRC. The ―Taíno heritage,‖ in contrast, has been given a
special position in the formation of the Puerto Rican nation/culture through the IPRC
since this trope was institutionalized as representing the authentic owners of the island
and the beginning of the Puerto Rican nation.
82
Chapter IV: Some contemporary uses of the Taíno trope
Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce current mobilizations of the ―Taíno‖
trope in the island to 1) illustrate that its mobilizations are still part of an ongoing,
complex process of self-identification among Puerto Ricans, and to 2) set up some
questions worth of exploration in future research. In order to accomplish these, I will
bring some examples of contemporary self-identification struggles among different actors
on the island that involve the ―Taíno‖ trope. Because this chapter is only an introduction
to recent struggles and debates of self-identification on the island, the contextualization
of the last 50 years or so will be very brief.
Surveying the contemporary political, socio-economic and ideological environment
on the island
After the institutionalization of a cultural nationalism in the 1950s, struggles
about national and cultural identification have become on the one hand, strictly regulated
by government agencies such as the IPRC and its local centers, and, on the other hand,
perceivably more diverse. The reasons for the evident diversity of understandings of
83
Puerto Ricanness lay in the contemporary ideological and political environment that this
cultural nationalism has created, socio-economic and political changes that U.S.
colonialism brought to the island since 1950s, and global transformations. Although I will
examine these conditions and their impact on the current discussions about Puerto
Ricannes in this section, they will be only briefly addressed.
In first place, similar to most nations around the world, the island was subjected to
development projects after the 1950s. In contrast with other Latin American countries,
however, Puerto Rico was not an independent nation. Rather, its colonial situation was
legalized through the Commonwealth constitution of 1952. In this context, development
projects on the island were designed by both the metropolis and the local government to
improve the social and economic conditions of the island.74
On the surface, the socio-
economic conditions of the island actually improved. For instance, the education and
health systems became available to all social classes, most towns on the island urbanized,
and poor classes obtained access to economic help from the federal government.
Nevertheless, they also reinforced an economic, ideological and political dependency
with the United States by underdeveloping the local economy—making Puerto Ricans
reliant on imported products, an informal economy and tourism—and allowing the
constant intervention of the U.S. colonial government in local matters based on the
assumption that Puerto Ricans need political guidance. As a result, not only there is a
widespread belief on the island that Puerto Ricans cannot survive economically and
74
The U.S. colonial government and the local government has very different in ‗developing‘ the island. At
one level, the U.S. wanted to prove internationally that they could bring democracy to other countries by
―developing‖ them. Thus, the U.S. invested money to make Puerto Rico a ―‗symbolic showcase‘ of the
U.S. developmentalist model for the Third World‖ (Grosfoguel 2003:6). This, in turn, could justify U.S.
political and economic expansion to other countries. The local elites, on the other hand, wanted to stay in
power by improving conditions on the island but without drastically changing established social relations.
84
politically without the intervention of U.S. colonial government, but also many Puerto
Ricans continue to be pleased with and grateful for this politico-economic situation. This
ideology of dependency is reinforced constantly by comparing the development of the
island with poor neighbor countries such as Cuba.
However, this political, ideological and economic dependency on the metropolis
has been complicated by a strongly promoted cultural nationalism. As mentioned in the
previous chapter, the IPRC and its centers were developed by the local government in the
1950s to ―secure‖ and ―preserve‖ the national/cultural identity that was being eroded by
the U.S. capitalist culture. Thus, the role of this governmental agency has been to
―preserve‖ and promote the ―authentic‖ Puerto Rican culture. However, the general
promotion of this national/cultural proud is in conflict with the allegedly impossibility for
Puerto Rico to become an independent nation. As a result, Puerto Ricans are constantly
experiencing an ideological tension. On the one hand, most Puerto Ricans do not want to
become politically independent from the U.S. since it would allegedly lead to
impoverishment and chaos. Yet, on the other hand, all Puerto Ricans celebrate and
cherish their distinctive history and ―culture‖ regardless of their political agendas or
interests. Thus, we find such apparently contradictory political ideologies as the
promotion of a ―Jíbaro state.‖ This idea has been promoted and mobilized by the most
popular assimilationist political party in the island, and it proposes the complete political
integration of the island to the United States but without cultural assimilation. In other
words, under this ideology Puerto Rico can become a U.S. state but it can also conserve
the local language, lifestyles, and international representation.75
As contradictory as this
75
Even though Puerto Rico is considered internationally a non-incorporated territory of the United States, it
can participate in such international events as the Miss Universe beauty pageant contest or the Olympics as
85
ideology sounds, it satisfies the wishes of most Puerto Ricans.76
In this respect, Dávila
(1997:1-2) argues that one of the consequences of the institutionalization of a cultural
nationalism has been that everybody on the island ―feels‖ Puerto Rican no matter their
political interests vis-à-vis the metropolis. So, we find Puerto Ricans who celebrate and
are proud of their ―culture‖ and ―history,‖ but want statehood, Commonwealth,
independence or none of them.
Additionally, self-identification struggles among Puerto Ricans are not only
dependant on governmental agencies‘ agendas—such as the IPRC projects—and the
politico-economic conditions of the island, but they are also affected by recent global
transformations. In first place, the commercialization and commodification of ―culture‖
have had a tremendous impact on struggles and debates about Puerto Ricanness. For
instance, in her study, Dávila (1997:1) shows how both local and international private
companies and local grassroots groups mobilize their understandings of Puerto Ricanness
because Puerto Rican culture sells. Thus, different notions and expressions of what is
authentically Puerto Rican are put forward by different groups that benefit economically
from the commodification of Puerto Rican ―culture.‖ However, these understandings are
complicated by the active role of the IPRC and its centers in regulating what elements
and specific expressions are considered authentically Puerto Rican and which ones are
not. In other words, although there is a regulatory institution that defines Puerto
an independent country. These events are the reason for a lot of national pride and celebration among all
Puerto Ricans. 76
This does not mean that all Puerto Ricans want the political assimilation with the U.S. For instance, there
are still political parties that, although in minority, promote the independence of the island. In addition,
there is ambivalence and even rejection among many Puerto Ricans about the absolute political and cultural
assimilation of the island to the U.S. This ambivalence was reflected on the non-binding local referendum
of 1998, in which the majority of the voters rejected the political interest of the local assimilationist
political party to define the political status of the island (for more information, see http://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/ Puerto_Rico_status_referenda).
86
Ricanness, this is constantly challenged, modified and reinforced by different groups that
sell and manifest their individual interpretations of Puerto Ricanness.
Furthermore, as Duany (1996, 2002) suggests, the constant movement of Puerto
Ricans between the island and the metropolis, and their different experiences have also
complicated self-understandings and expressions of Puerto Ricanness on both the island
and Diaspora (see also Scarano 1993:757-764). Finally, as I discussed elsewhere,77
recent
global and international interests in indigenous groups and in certain spaces and cultures
as part of the world heritage and the associated value these have been given
internationally and locally have affected contemporary Puerto Ricans‘ self-identifications
(Thomas 1994:170-192).
These local and global transformations form part of the context of contemporary
struggles of Puerto Rican identifications. These struggles are complex and varied, as
Dávila (1997, 1999) shows in her works, and cannot be addressed in detail here.
However, I offer some examples of contemporary debates about Puerto Ricanness that
mobilize the ―Taíno‖ trope to both challenge and reinforce normative conceptions about
Puerto Ricanness, with implications for the meanings and understandings of a ―Taíno
heritage‖ or ―Taíno past.‖ Such current mobilizations permit us to see the ongoing nature
of processes of self-identification struggles and debates, and their tensions.
77
I explored the impact of international communities on local understandings and expressions of
―Indianness,‖ ―primitivism,‖ and indigeneity‖ in an exercise paper called ―Taíno Struggles: Entangling
Taíno Movements on Contemporary Puerto Rican Cultural Politics‖ (2007). For more information about
the impact of modern global representations of indigenous groups, see Kirshenblatt-Gimblet (2006) and
Thomas (1994:170-192).
87
Examples of contemporary Taíno mobilizations and understandings
The 500 year anniversary of the Columbian voyage to America generated a lot of
local and international debate about colonialism and indigenous American populations
before, during and after the arrival of Columbus.78
A growing interest emerged from
different local and international communities to recount the story of pre-Columbian
groups and the period of cultural contact and colonization. For instance, in Puerto Rico,
historical, genetic and archaeological research surrounding this historical moment was
sponsored by the local government, universities, and international organizations. This
anniversary, however, also prompted more critical debates around the world. Thus, many
sectors of Latin American countries, in particular, took this opportunity to denounce
colonial injustices that the arrival of Columbus brought. In consequence, a space was
opened up for reviving and commemorating ―Taíno heritage‖ on the island. For instance,
as part of the local discussions, Martínez-Cruzado designed a genetic study using
mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to measure and characterize the genetic lineages of the
Puerto Rican population.79
His conclusions revealed that around 60% of the Puerto Rican
population had Amerindian ancestry. Based on this conclusion, he proposed that
―Taínos‖ were not exterminated by the Spaniards as it is assumed in the official Puerto
Rican history. Considering the notion that mtDNA is only inherited maternally, he
suggested that even though the ―Taíno‖ male population decreased intensively through
labor exploitation, diseases and war during the cultural contact and colonization periods,
―Taíno‖ females survived and had children voluntarily or by coercion with available
males—mostly colonizers. This investigation produced a lot of critique among
78
For an idea of these debates, see Dussel (1994), Herren (1993), Josephy (1993), Meléndez (1989), Sued-
Badillo and Delgado (1991), and Sued-Badillo (1993). 79
To read more about this project visit http://www.udel.edu/LASP/Vol1-2MartinezC.html.
88
contemporary intellectuals but it was also supported by some archaeological and
historical research.80
To complicate matters, since the 1980s, many Puerto Rican Taíno organizations
have developed on the island and in the United States. As mentioned in the introduction,
these organizations identify strongly with ―Taíno‖ heritage and culture since they believe
they are direct descendants of ―Taínos.‖ For this reason, they are making political claims
on the island and in the U.S. to be recognized as authentic ―Taínos.‖ This strong
identification with the ―Taíno‖ trope has been under a very heated debate81
since it is in
conflict with the canonical understanding that ―Taínos‖ were annihilated early in the
colonization process, and cultural and biological ―Taínos‖ traits were inherited only
through miscegenation. Yet, this hegemonic narrative is open for reinterpretation since it
suggests a survival of ―Taíno‖ culture and genetics that is present in the contemporary
Puerto Rican population. Thus, alternative interpretations that recount a ―Taíno‖ survival
in different ways such as through the mtDNA research described above or through Taíno
organizations are possible. The IPRC-promoted hegemonic narrative of the survival of
―Taínos‖ only through miscegenation is being both challenged and reinforced by these
reinterpretations.
In consequence, discussions about ―Taíno‖ heritage‘s role in the Puerto Rican
nation/culture have become very intense in the last 30 years among different kinds of
intellectuals. For example, the famous local writer Tina Casanova published in 2005 a
novel called ―The last sound of the seashell” (“El último sonido del caracol”) in which
80
For some archaeological work on this matter, see Deagan (2004), and Gullick (1995). For a critique of
this genetic study, see Haslip-Viera 2006a. 81
Múcaro-Borrero (2006); Dávila (2006); Duany (2006); Ferbel (2002); Forte (1998/9, 2005); Guitar et al
(2006); Haslip-Viera (2006a, 2006b); Martínez-Cruzado (2002).
89
she makes the argument for the survival of the ―Taíno race/culture‖ through gradual
mestizaje. Very recently, she published another celebratory novel about Puerto Rican
―Taíno‖ roots called, ―In Search of the Golden Cemí” (―En Busca del Cemí Dorado‖,
2007). In addition, Olivero‘s (1996) doctoral dissertation takes for granted that certain
characteristics among Puerto Rican women are ―Taíno‖-inherited cultural characteristics,
contributing to the discussion of ―Taíno‖-inherited cultural traits in an academic setting.
Another example of this revival of ―Taino‖ heritage can be seen in the artistic work of
Ricardo Álvarez Rivón directed to popular consumption. His most popular work has been
the creation of the El Turey comic, which was published weekly for several years in the
most popular newspaper on the island, El Nuevo Día, and a later collection of these were
published by the IPRC (Álvarez Rivón 1995). These comics reproduce taken-for-granted
essentialisms about ―Taino‖ culture and ―Caribs‖ humoristically, using popular
contemporary language, and addressing contemporary local issues.
At the same time, most popular classes are ambiguous about these discussions. At
one level, there is an ongoing celebration of the ―Taíno heritage‖ on the island that is
manifested through government- and private-sponsored festivals, through oral myths,
through cultural assets, and through naming spaces and peoples with ―Taíno‖ names. This
daily experience with a ―Taíno heritage‖ reinforces a constant identification with a
―Taíno culture‖ or past among Puerto Ricans. For this reason, when the mtDNA research
became public in 2000, Martinez-Cruzado findings were the cause for celebration on
newspapers and television. At another level, there is a general resistance against ―Taíno‖
celebratory expressions since they are still identified with separatist and independence
agendas. This rejection was experienced by Arlene Dávila (1997:220-232) when she was
90
exploring the cultural politics embedded in the National Indigenous Festival of Jayuya.
Although the IPRC, the government office of this town, and local peoples invested time
and money to celebrate this festival, many lay audiences considered it either ―ridiculous‖
(based on the understanding that ―Taínos‖ were exterminated in the 1600s), or
understood that it had a nationalist agenda, making of this festival a highly politically
charged one (Dávila:221-222).82
In addition, most popular classes and intellectuals
discredit the Taíno organizations and their agendas. In particular, their authenticity is
questioned by most local people since most of these organizations emerged in the United
States. Local Taíno organizations have been intensively criticized by lay peoples and
intellectuals. However, some government- and private-sponsored events have been
recently including local Taíno organizations as representatives of the ―Taíno‖ heritage.83
These varied contemporary understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope form part of the
current national/cultural identification struggles that mobilize the ―Taíno‖ trope for
different political and ideological agendas. They also represent both a constant challenge
and reinforcement of the IPRC-promoted understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope. The
complexities of these struggles, their contextualization, and their connections with more
global indigenous struggles will be the focus of future research. Some academics have
82
The term nationalism in Puerto Rico is conflated with pro-independence agendas. While every Puerto
Rican celebrates their ―Puerto Ricanness,‖ there is an ideological tension always present between
cherishing it and its hidden political agendas in relation to the metropolis. For this reason, national
identification is usually expressed in cultural terms such as Puerto Rican culture or cultural identity rather
than using the term nationalism. 83
For instance, during the inauguration of the Botanic and Cultural Park in my hometown Caguas, the
mayor invited a local ―Taíno‖ organization among the invited cultural artists as representatives of ―Taíno‖
heritage (http://www.caguas.com.pr/Default.aspx?tabid=225). This inclusion can be associated with the
Taíno Organization‘s struggles with the government about indigenous rights and land issues. For this last
point, explore the Caguana Ceremonial legal conflict on the following internet sources:
http://www.sacredland.org/world_sites_pages/Caguana.html, http://www.indiancountry.com/content
.cfm?id=1096411349, and http://cacreview.blogspot.com/2005/07/taino-sacred-site-protest.html.
91
tried to critically explore these dynamics.84
Yet, the focus has been on tracing the
emergence of and the reasons for ―Taíno‖ identifications among Puerto Ricans rather
than on the ideological and political dynamics among different actors—such as the role
of NGOs or other international organizations, governmental agencies, social movements,
different artists and lay audiences in challenging, modifying, transforming and
reinforcing normative conceptions of ―Puerto Ricanness‖ and ―Taíno,‖ ―African‖ and
―Spanish‖ heritages. In this sense, Davila‘s works (1997, 1999) serve as examples for
research that has to be done in the island in relation to current mobilizations of the Taíno
trope as part of self-identification debates. It would be interesting also to explore the
connections between these ―Taíno‖ mobilizations and the prevalent colonial context on
the island, and the ongoing local political debates among Puerto Ricans. Finally, many
local social practices that contribute to these national/cultural struggles should be
explored. These questions and others will be explored in the next chapter in more detail.
Conclusion
As I have tried to show in this chapter, the ―Taíno‖ trope is still widely mobilized
in the current context. These mobilizations, and their connections and impact on
national/cultural struggles need to be explored in more detail in further works. However,
this brief exploration of current self-identification struggles that mobilize different
understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope, and their conflicts and convergences, bring to the
forefront not only some interesting dynamics that highlight the ongoing local struggles of
self-identification, but also many questions that would be worth exploring in further
84
See for instance the collection of articles edited by Haslip-Viera (2006b).
92
research. The next chapter will explore the possibilities for further works, in addition to
providing the conclusions and final remarks.
93
Chapter V: Conclusions and Final Remarks
Main Conclusions
Throughout this thesis I have highlighted two central points. One of my intentions
has been to open up the category of ―Taíno‖ that has been incorporated into the
commonsensical milieu of Puerto Ricans. To accomplish this, I tried to show in chapters
II and III how this trope is a Spanish invention that was later appropriated by local
intellectuals through the discourse of mestizaje. In addition, the different appropriations
and discursive rearticulations of this invention during the 19th
and early 20th
century were
analyzed and contextualized in order to show its constructive and ambiguous character.
This does not mean that there were not indigenous populations on the island before the
arrival of Spaniard conquistadores. However, ―Taíno‖ as a ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖
category with particular meanings was constructed by Spaniards and Europeans based on
their ideological presumptions of the Other, and their political and economic interests
towards the Caribbean islands (Sued-Badillo 1978:77, 1995). In turn, local appropriations
of this Spanish invention served many local intellectuals as a discursive tool to ―racially‖
and ―culturally‖ distance themselves from the different colonial states‘ cultures, and
question colonial presumptions about Puerto Ricans and their practices. This ideological
tactic developed during the 19th
century among liberals and political separatists who
94
wanted more political autonomy under Spanish colonialism. In the first decades of the
20th
century, it was also mobilized as a discursive self-identifying tool against the ―U.S.
capitalist culture.‖ However, this has not been the only use of the ―Taíno‖ trope among
local intellectuals. The idea of the noble savage, which reinforced the colonial situation
of the island, was also romanticized among 19th
- and 20th
-century intellectuals. This
connotation of the ―Taíno‖ trope was used as means to both rationalize and question
colonial ideologies and practices. Thus, we cannot talk about one understanding of the
―Taíno‖ trope among local intellectuals of these periods but of many. As I have tried to
show, their differences vary according to the particular political interests with the
metropolis in which it is employed and the particular ideological contexts. Even after the
officialization of the noble savage understanding of the ―Taíno‖ category, this trope is
still being mobilized in different ways on the island. As exemplified by Cajiga‘s painting
(see Appendix, Figure 1) and by the recent Taíno organizations that claim descent from
―Taínos,‖ we can say that different understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope are still being and
will continue to be mobilized in relation to different political agendas.
My second intention has been to explore and contextualize the process of
authentication of the ―Taíno‖ trope as one of the trademarks of the Puerto Rican
national/cultural identification with the hope that in the process I could understand how
Puerto Ricans became strongly identified with ―Taínos.‖ In other words, I wanted not
only to narrate how ―Taínos‖ were constructed as Puerto Ricans but also how Puerto
Ricans became constructed as ―Taínos.‖ I accomplished this partially in the previous
chapters. Specifically, the Puerto Ricanization of the ―Taíno‖ trope was explored by
contextualizing and analyzing the different local appropriations of the ―Taíno‖ category
95
as a ―racial‖ and ―cultural‖ ancestor of the Puerto Rican nation/culture under both
colonial governments. From this analysis, I can say that the ―Taíno‖ construct was
described as an ancestor of the local Puerto Rican population by Spaniards, who
understood Puerto Ricans as mestizos. During the 19th
century, in the midst of nationalist
struggles elsewhere in the Americas, local intellectuals appropriated the mestizaje
discourse, and in particular, the ―Taíno‖ trope as a discursive tool of self-identification
against the Spanish colonial government. The importance of the ―Taíno‖ construct in this
ideological struggle with the metropolis for self-definition is rooted in the authoritative
and authenticating character that this construct offers to the local population. This
mobilization continued even with the change of sovereignty since it was useful for
putting forward different political agendas until the ―Taíno‖ construct was
institutionalized in the 1950s as the ―first root‖ of the Puerto Rican nation/culture.
Yet, the Taínonization of Puerto Ricans was only briefly addressed. For this
reason, I want to emphasize in more detail this argument here. In first place, from the
historical exploration of the national debates in the island, I found that many local
intellectuals inscribed in this construct their understandings of Puerto Ricans. This
intellectualizing process occurred under both colonial governments. Thus, interpretations
of the ―Taíno‖ as rebel and warrior, or as passive, submissive, primitive and antimodern
among 19th
- and 20th
-century intellectuals were not only descriptions of ―Taíno culture;‖
they were also descriptions of themselves and of what they wanted to be. In other words,
the ―Taíno‖ construct was created as the beginning of the Puerto Rican nation/culture,
but, in the process of constructing the ―Taíno heritage,‖ intellectuals also ascribed their
understandings of ―Taínos‖ to themselves. In this sense, we see how in the 19th
century,
96
some intellectuals who wanted political separation from Spain identified with the
constructed rebellious character of ―Taíno culture,‖ which they revived and romanticized.
In addition, we saw how in the first half of the 20th
century some intellectuals ascribed
noble savage notion of the ―Taínos‖ on to the Puerto Rican personality. Thus, part of this
intellectualization process in which the past of the nation/culture was constructed is the
co-production of the present, and vice versa. In other words, ―[t]he construction of a
past…is a project that selectively organizes events in a relation of continuity with a
contemporary subject, thereby creating an appropriated representation of a life leading up
to the present, that is, a life history fashioned in the act of self-definition‖ (Friedman
1992:837). As a result, the past and the present are entangled in such a way that they
define each other (Trouillot 1995).
Following this argument, then, it makes sense both that the Puerto Rican
nation/culture has been defined by different intellectuals in relation to their
understandings of its past, and that the history of the Puerto Rican nation/culture is
constructed based on the understandings of their present. Hence, whenever these
intellectuals constructed and rearticulated the ―Taíno‖ trope as an ancestor of the Puerto
Rican nation/culture, their understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope both produced and were
based on present understanding of themselves. In other words, the Puerto Ricanization of
the ―Taíno‖ construct involves also a Taínonization of Puerto Ricans.
However, this intellectualization process was not limited to the ―Taíno‖ trope.
When Puerto Rican intellectuals were appropriating such tropes as ―Taíno,‖ ―African,‖
―Jíbaro,‖ and ―Hispanic‖ as representatives of the Puerto Rican nation/culture, they were
not only describing how these contributed or embodied the Puerto Rican nation/culture
97
but they were also inscribing all of them with their understandings of themselves. For this
reason, it is difficult sometimes to ascribe particular ―cultural assets‖ to each trope. One
of the main objectives of the IPRC is to regulate these ascriptions but, as exemplified by
the Taínonization of the güiro instrument, these classifications keep changing all the
time.85
Consequently, it would be simplistic to say that Puerto Ricans have been merely
Taínonized in the process of constructing a national identification. This is not true. As we
have seen, this process has been much more complex than that. In contemporary Puerto
Rico, for instance, all these tropes are still being used by different actors for different
political purposes in different ways (Dávila 1997, 1999). This is so, even when the IPRC
works as a regulatory agency of the national/cultural identification discourse,
constraining the possible mobilizations. Therefore, we cannot ignore that all these tropes
are constructed in relation to the always changing understandings of the Puerto Rican
nation/culture.
What brought me to explore in this thesis the particular process of Taínonization
of Puerto Rican culture was the growing interest in ―Taíno‖ heritage among Puerto
Ricans in the current context. As I showed in the previous chapter, some contemporary
Puerto Ricans identify very strongly and in novel ways with ―Taíno‖ heritage. Their
mobilizations of this trope for self-identification, in consequence, is both challenging and
reinforcing hegemonic understandings of the ―Taíno‖ trope. In particular, the novel
understanding of the ―Taíno‖ trope as a prevalent living group among the mestizo
population reflects its prevailing significance as a discursive tool for self-identification.
However, in order to approach this contemporary Taíno identification it would be
85
For a profound analysis of the IPRC role in the constant contestation of Puerto Rican cultural elements,
see Dávila (1997).
98
important to contextualize the current ideological, political, social and economic changes
that have prompted it. I attempted this briefly in the previous chapter but a more detailed
exploration is necessary. However, based on some of the questions I introduced in
Chapter IV, and as a result of the analysis of this thesis, some helpful ideas for further
investigations can be proposed.
Further Questions
By exploring the historical identification of Puerto Ricans with a ―Taíno‖
heritage, among others, I have attempted to show that more recent identifications with
this trope among Puerto Ricans (such as the emergence of Taíno Organizations that claim
legal recognition as ―Taínos‖) do not appear out of the blue. There has been a continuous
identification among Puerto Ricans with a ―Taíno‖ past that has been reproduced and
reinforced through time. In first place, the meanings that have been given to this trope
have been proved to be crucial for Puerto Ricans as they constructed themselves and their
history against colonial metropolitan cultures. Secondly, the IPRC, which was
implemented as a regulatory governmental agency to reproduce and reinforce a particular
understanding of Puerto Ricanness, officialized the ―Taíno‖ trope—understood as a noble
savage—as the ―first root‖ of the Puerto Rican culture. In this way, a previously ongoing
discussion about the ―Taíno‖ heritage vis-à-vis Puerto Rican culture was institutionalized,
and the ―Taínos‖ started to be promoted as the original and authentic owners of the
island. The promotion of this governmental institution—through the public educational
system, museums, magazines, sponsoring and promoting research and artistic
publications, reconstructing historical spaces, etc.—of a ―Taíno‖ heritage has reinforced a
99
continuous identification with the ―Taíno‖ trope among Puerto Ricans. Therefore, after
the 1950s, an elitist debate that discussed the role of the ―Taíno‖ past in the Puerto Rican
heritage became available for a wider range of actors through the promotional practices
of the IPRC. Although its main role is the disciplining of the local population about what
is authentically Puerto Rican, these promotional and disciplining practices have moved
the ongoing debate about Puerto Ricanness to a more inclusionary arena. Dávila (1997,
1999) has done extensive ethnographic work on the contemporary cultural struggles
between local grassroots groups, local and transnational private corporations and the
IPRC over what is authentically Puerto Rican. Her works accentuate the commodification
of ―culture‖ as a terrain to both reproduce and challenge the dominant, normative
conceptions of the Puerto Rican culture that are regulated by the IPRC. What it is
insightful about these works is that the IPRC regulations are constantly challenged by a
wide variety of actors who are experiencing and manifesting Puerto Ricanness in
different ways. Thus, there is a constant struggle about what elements are rightfully
Puerto Rican. In this sense, I believe that the recent strong identification with ―Taínos‖ of
some Puerto Ricans have to be inserted in this local cultural politics arena in which
Puerto Rican authenticity is debated, reaffirmed and challenged.
Most studies of recent ―Taíno‖ revival in Puerto Rico and the Diaspora focus on
explanations about their emergence in relation to a contemporary global move towards
indigeneity, and in relation to a history of foregrounding the ―Taíno‖ heritage to diminish
the ―African‖ trope. These studies open up questions about the ongoing insistence on
reviving the ―Taíno culture,‖ and how it has become stronger recently. However, most of
these articles are guided by an underlying debate about the authenticity of these Taíno
100
organizations. Therefore, in my view, there is a need to move away from such debate to
ask other questions. Following Dávila‘s works I want to pursue an analysis of Taíno
association struggles in the current cultural politics on the island and the Diaspora, which
would include such actors as local intellectuals, governmental agencies, grassroots
groups, private companies, and international organizations, to obtain more insights about
the complexities of identification processes, their constraints and their dynamic nature. In
other words, I believe that it would be more useful for social scientists to explore the
dynamics, struggles, experiences, manifestations, activities, and discourses of such
groups in the contemporary context than to focus on explaining merely why they
emerged, or disclaiming them as an ‗invented‘ identity, or as inauthentic. Moreover, it
could be valuable to explore also how contemporary popular groups respond to these
issues: their awareness of them, their experiences and understandings of these Taíno
organizations, and their understandings of the ―Taíno‖ heritage and how they identify
with it.
To make such an exploration possible requires that we investigate the
contemporary ideological, political, social and economic changes on the island that have
had an impact on the dynamics of more recent identifications of Puerto Ricans with
―Taínos.‖ Relevant factors include political and economic changes as 1) the perceived
global movement of ideas, peoples and things, 2) the commodification of ―culture‖ and
nationalisms, and 3) the transnational and federal interventions in local matters (such as
the recognition of indigenous identities and in assigning particular roles to local
communities as world heritage protectors), and their impact on local self-understandings.
Another important aspect that should be considered as part of such an exploration is the
101
current global move towards the conservation and preservation of local and traditional
knowledge and heritage, and more specifically with how environmental protection has
promoted an indigeneity or ‗Indian‘ identification among many indigenous groups. I
believe such entanglements could provide a better understanding of how some Puerto
Ricans identify with their ―Taíno heritage‖ in the contemporary context. In addition, it is
worth exploring how Puerto Rican Taíno organizations respond to these ideological and
politico-economic changes to forward their particular interests of legal recognition as
―Taínos‖ since it could provide insights into the interrelations among international
organizations, governmental agencies, and local groups in the (re)construction of
identifications.
Finally, there is a growing interest in the role of social memory (Connerton 1989)
in identification processes among social scientists.86
Considering the aggressive and
regulatory promotional role of the IPRC, its role in the (re)production of a ―Taíno
memory‖ through a whole range of strategies—by building ―Taíno‖ spaces (such as parks
and statues), selling of ―Taíno‖ crafts, and organizing ―Taíno‖ celebratory activities—
could be also a useful way to approach the contemporary identifications with ―Taínos‖
among Puerto Ricans. In addition, there exists an oral history and more popular everyday
practices that can also be tied to the constant ―Taíno‖ identification. Research could
fruitfully focus on popular expressions and words that work as living records of an
allegedly ―Taíno‖ past among Puerto Ricans as well as on the association of landscapes
and ―Taíno‖ representations.
All these possible links to understand the current ―Taíno‖ identification among
Puerto Ricans could be established in further research. However, it is important to avoid
86
For instance, see Dietler‘s (1998) analysis of the co-production of social memory and collective identity.
102
simplistic conclusions. This can be accomplished by highlighting many of the
complexities of Puerto Ricans‘ identifications and their constraints. In particular, the
colonialism that still pervades the national/cultural identification debates should not be
ignored. The constant ideological, cultural, political, economic, and social interactions of
Puerto Ricans with U.S. must be considered when discussing local self-identification
debates.
Final Remarks
Although my analysis is limited by space, it has served to show the constructive
and ambiguous nature of the ―Taíno‖ construct and the co-production of the ―Taíno‖
trope and national and cultural identities in the island. In regards to the last point, I have
tried to show how the intellectualization process of ―Taíno‖ heritage has served as a
means for self-definition against metropolitan cultures. In the process, not only was the
―Taíno‖ trope constructed as Puerto Rican but the national/cultural identifications have
been inscribed with ―Taíno‖ characteristics. This intellectualization process has continued
to this day, manifested by Taíno organizations and their critics, and other kinds of
―Taíno‖ revival. Expanding this analysis to the contemporary context would be valuable
to understand the prevalent ―Taíno‖ identification among Puerto Ricans, its complexities,
and its constraints.
103
Appendix:
Figure 1: Luis Germán Cajiga‘s Serigraphy Las Tres Razas (1998), from
http://www.estudiocajiga.com /reproducciones.htm
Figure 2: Emblem of the Institute of Puerto Rican Culture (ICP) conceived by Ricardo E.
Alegria and artistically designed by Lorenzo Homar. ―This emblem represents the three
cultures and races that gave birth to the Puerto Rican ―culture‖ and nation‖
(http://www.icp.gobierno.pr/icp/emblema.htm; translated by me)
104
Bibliography
Books and Journals:
Alegría, Ricardo E. 1973. Descubrimiento, conquista y colonización de Puerto Rico.
Barcelona: Manuel Pareja.
Alegría, Ricardo E. 1974. Historia de nuestros indios. Versión elemental. Barcelona:
Manuel Pareja.
Alegría, Ricardo E. 1986. Apuntes en torno a la mitología de los indios Taínos de las
Antillas Mayores y sus orígenes Suramericanos. 2nd ed. Barcelona: Graficas 92.
Alegría, Ricardo E. 1996. El Instituto de Cultura Puertorriqueña 1955-1973: 18 años
contribuyendo a fortalecer nuestra conciencia nacional. República Dominicana:
Talleres Gráficos de Editora Corripio.
Alonso, Manuel. 1965. El Gíbaro: cuadro de costumbres de la isla de Puerto Rico.
San Juan, P.R.: Instituto de Cultural Puertorriqueña.
Álvarez-Rivón, Ricardo. 1995. Turey, el Taíno. San Juan, P.R.: Instituto de Cultura
Puertorriqueña, Editorial Manos, Inc.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. Reflections on the Origin and
Spread of Nationalism. London: Verso.
Ayala-Richards, Haydee. 2003. La presencia Taína en la narrativa Puertorriqueña
Levinston: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Bakhtin, M.M. & P.N. Medvedev. 1928. The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship, In
The Bakhtin Reader: Selected Writings of Bakhtin, Medvedev, Voloshivov (1994).
New York: Arnold.
Barreiro, José. 1990a. View from the Shore. American Indian Perspectives on the
Quincentenary. Northeast Indian Quaterly, Fall 1990. Jose Barreiro, ed.
Barreiro, José. 1990b. A Note on Tainos: Whither Progress? In View from the Shore.
American Indian Perspectives on the Quincentenary. Northeast Indian Quaterly,
Fall 1990. Jose Barreiro, ed. pp.66-81.
Barreto, Amílcar Antonio. 2001. The politics of language in Puerto Rico. Gainesville:
University Press of Florida.
Betances, Ramón Emeterio.1998. Los Dos Indios. Episodio de la conquista de
Borinquén. San Juan: Congreso Nacional Hostosiano.
105
Biolsi, Thomas. 1995. the birth of the reservation: making the modern individual
among the Lakota. American Ethnologist 22(1):28-53.
Blanco, Tomás.1973. Prontuario histórico de Puerto Rico, 6 ed. San Juan: Instituto
de Cultura Puertorriqueña.
Bodinger de Uriarte, John. 2003. Imagining the Nation with House Odds:
Representing American Identity at Mashantucket. Ethnohistory 50 (3): 550-565.
Bryan, William S. 1900. Our islands and their people. ND, Thompson Publisher Co.
Casanova, Tina. 2005. El último sonido del caracol. Hato Rey, P.R.: Publicaciones
Puertorriqueñas, Inc.
Casanova, Tina. 2007. En Busca del Cemí Dorado. Hato Rey, P.R.: Publicaciones
Puertorriqueñas, Inc.
Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC).1990. La Imagen del Indio en
la Europa Moderna. España: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de
Sevilla.
Connerton, Paul. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Corchado-Juarbe, Carmen. 1994. El indio: Su presencia en la poesía puertorriqueña,
2nd ed. Santo Domingo: Editora Corripio.
Córdova, Nathaniel L. 2005. In his image and likeness: The Puerto Rican jibaro as
political icon. CENTRO Journal. XVII(2):170-191.
Corretjer, Juan Antonio. 1970. Agueybaná. In Agueybaná, poemas criollos. Ponce:
Ediciones Alerta. pp.12
Curet, L. Antonio. 2005. Caribbean Paleodemography. Population, Culture History,
and Sociopolitical Processes in Ancient Puerto Rico. Tuscaloosa: The University
of Alabama Press.
Dávila, Arlene M. 1997. Sponsored Identities. Cultural Politics in Puerto Rico.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Dávila, Arlene M. 1999. Crafting Culture: Selling and Contesting Authenticity in
Puerto Rico‘s Informal Economy. Studies in Latin American Popular Culture.
18:159-161.
Dávila, Arlene M. 2006. Local/Diasporic Tainos: Towards a Cultural Politics of
Memory, Reality and Imagery. In Taíno Revival: Critical Perspectives on Puerto
106
Rican Identity and cultural Politics. Gabriel Haslip-Viera, ed. New Jersey:
Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton. pp.33-53.
Deagan, Kathleen. 2004. Reconsidering Taíno Social Dynamics after Spanish
Conquest: Gender and Class in Culture Contact Studies. American Antiquity.
69(4):597-626.
De Hostos, Eugenio María. 2000. La Peregrinación de Bayoán. Río Piedras: Editorial
Edil, Inc.
De la Cadena, Marisol. 2000. Indigenous Mestizos. The Politics of Race and Culture
in Cuzco, Peru, 1919-1991. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
De la Fuente, Alejandro. 2001. A nation for all. Race, inequality and politics in
twentieth-century Cuba. Chapell Hill and London: The University of North
Carolina Press.
Dietler, Michael.1998. A tale of three sites: The monumentalization of Celtic oppida
and the politics of collective memory and identity. World Arcaheology 30(1):72-
89.
Dirks, Nicholas B., Geoff Eley, and Sherry B. Ortner. 1994. Introduction. In
Culture/Power/History. A reader in Contemporary Social Theory. Nicholas
B.Dirks, Geoff Eley, and Sherry B. Ortner, eds. New Jersey: Princeton University
Press. pp.3-48.
Dirks, Nicholas B. 1996. Is Vice Versa? Historical Anthropolgies and
Anthropological Histories. In The Historic Turn in the Human Sciences. Terence
McDonald, ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. pp.17-51.
Duany, Jorge. 1996. Imagining the Puerto Rican Nation: Recent Works on Cultural
Identity. Latin American Research Review 31(3):248-267.
Duany, Jorge. 2000. El censo, la raza y los puertorriqueños. El nuevo día. 18 de
Febrero.
Duany, Jorge. 2002. The Puerto Rican Nation on the move: Identities on the island
and in the United States. Chapel Hill and London: The University of North
Carolina Press.
Duany, Jorge. 2006. Making Indians Out of Blacks: The Revitalization of Taíno
Identity in Contemporaneous Puerto Rico. In Taíno Revival: Critical Perspectives
on Puerto Rican Identity and cultural Politics. Gabriel Haslip-Viera, ed. New
Jersey: Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton. pp.55-81.
107
Dussel, Enrique. 1994. 1492. El Encubrimiento del Otro. Hacia el origen del “mito
de la Modernidad.” La Paz: Plural editores.
Duviols Jean-Paul. 1990. Los indios, protagonistas de los mitos europeos. In La
imagen del indio en la Europa moderna. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones
Cientificas (CSIC), eds. España: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de
Sevilla. pp.377-388.
Epstein, Edwin H. 1970. Politics and education in Puerto Rico: A documentary
survey of the language issue. New Jersey: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Fernández-Retamar, Roberto. 1989. ―Caliban: Notes Toward a Discussion of Culture
in Our America.‖ In Caliban and Other Essays. Roberto Fernandez-Retamar, ed.
Minneapolis: U. of Minnesota Press. pp.3-45.
Fequiere, Magali Roy. 1996. Negar lo negro seria gazmoñería: Luis Palés Matos,
Margot Arce, and the Black Poetry Debate. CENTRO Journal. 8(1&2):82-91.
Forgacs, David. 2000. The Antonio Gramsci Reader. New York: New York
University Press.
Forte, Maximilian C. 2006. Indigenous Resurgence in the Contemporary Caribbean.
Amerindian Survival and Revival. Maximilian Forte, ed. New York: Peter Lang.
Friedman, Jonathan 1992. The Past in the Future: History and the Politics of Identity.
American Anthropologist 94(4):837-859.
Gil-Bermejo García, Juana. 1990. Ideas sobre el Indio americano en la España del
siglo XVI. In La imagen del indio en la Europa moderna. Consejo Superior de
Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), eds. España: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-
Americanos de Sevilla. pp.117-125.
González, José Luis. 1989. El País de Cuatro Pisos. In El País de Cuatro Pisos y
otros Ensayos. José Luis González, ed. Río Piedras: Ediciones Huracán. pp.11-42.
Graham, Richard. 1992. Introduction. In The Idea of Race in Latin America, 1870-
1940. Richard Graham, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp.1-5.
Gravlee, Clarence C. 2005. Ethnic Classification in the Southeastern Puerto Rico: The
Cultural Model of ―Color‖. Social Forces. 83(3):949-970.
Grosfoguel, Ramón. 2003. Colonial subjects. Puerto Ricans in a global perspective.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
108
Guerra, Lillian. 1998. Popular Expression and National Identity in Puerto Rico. The
Struggle for Self, Community, and Nation. Gainesville: University Press of
Florida.
Guitar, Lynne, Pedro Ferbel, and Jorge Estevez. 2006. ―Ocama-Daca Taíno (Hear
me, I Am Taíno): Taíno Survival on Hispaniola, Focusing on the Dominican
Republic.‖ In Indigenous Resurgence in the Contemporary Caribbean:
Amerindian Survival and Revival. Maximilian C. Forte, ed. New York: Peter
Lang. pp.41-67.
Gullick, Charles J.M.R.C. 1995. Communicating Caribness. In Wolves form the Sea.
Neil L. Whitehead, ed. Leiden: KITLV Press. pp.157-170.
Handler, Richard and Jocelyn Linnekin. 1984. Tradition, Genuine or Spurious.
Journal of American Folklore 97(385):273-290.
Hangen, Susan. 2005. Races and the Politics of Identity in Nepal. Ethnology
44(1):49-64.
Hanson, Allan. 1989. The Making of the Maori: Culture Invention and its Logic.
American Anthropologist 91(4):890-902.
Haslip-Viera, Gabriel. 2006a. The Politics of Taíno Revivalism: the insignificance of
Amerindian mtDNA in the population history of Puerto Ricans. A comment on
recent research. CENTRO Journal 18(1):261-275.
Haslip-Viera, Gabriel. 2006b. Introduction. In Taíno Revival. Critical Perspectives on
Puerto Rican Identity and Cultural Politics. Gabriel Haslip-Viera, ed. Princeton:
Markus Wiener Publishers. pp.1-31.
Hawkins, Sean. 2002. Chapter 1: Maps and Narratives. In Writing and Colonialism in
Northern Ghana: The Encounter between the LoDagaa and “the World on
Paper”. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. pp.39-62.
Helg, Aline. 1992. Race in Latin Argentine and Cuba, 1880-1930: Theory, Policies,
and Popular Reaction. In The idea of race in Latin America, 1870-1940. Richard
Graham, ed. Austin: University of Texas Press. pp.37-70.
Hernández, Carmen Dolores. 2002. Ricardo Alegría. Una vida. San Juan, P.R.:
Editoria Plaza Mayor.
Herren, Ricardo. 1993. La otra cara de la conquista. Viaje a las Indias maravillosas.
Barcelona: Editorial Planeta.
Hobsbawn, Eric. 1983. Introduction: Inventing Traditions. In: The Invention of
Tradition, edited by Eric Hobsbawn and Terence Ranger. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. pp.1-14.
109
Hobsbawn, Eric. 1990. Nation and Nationalisms since 1780: Programme, Myth,
Reality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hulme, Peter. 1986a. Introduction. In Colonial Encounters: Europe and the Native
Caribbean, 1492-1787. New York and London: Methuen. pp.1-12.
Hulme, Peter. 1986b. Columbus and the cannibals. In Colonial Encounters: Europe
and the Native Caribbean, 1492-1787. New York and London: Methuen. pp.13-
36.
Hulme, Peter and Neil L. Whitehead. 1992. Wild Majesty. Encounters with Caribs
from Columbus to the Present Day. An Anthology. Peter Hulme and Neil L.
Whitehead, eds. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Jiménez-Román, Miriam. 1996. Un hombre (negro) del pueblo: José Celso Barbosa
and the Puerto Rican ―Race‖ Toward Whiteness. CENTRO Journal 8(1-2):9-29.
Jiménez-Román, Miriam. 2006. The Indians are coming! The Indians are coming!:
The Taino and Puerto Rican Identity. In Taíno Revival: Critical Perspectives on
Puerto Rican Identity and cultural Politics. Gabriel Haslip-Viera, ed.. New
Jersey: Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton. pp.101-138.
Josephy Jr., Alvin M. 1993. America in 1492. The world of the Indian peoples before
the arrival of Columbus. Alvin M. Josephy, Jr., Ed. New York: Vintage Books.
Kirshenblatt-Gimblet, Barbara. 2006. World Heritage and Cultural Economics. In:
Museum Frictions. Public Cultures/Global Transformations, edited by Ivan Karp,
Corinne A. Kratz, Lynn Szaja and Tomas Ybarra-Frausto. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Kropfinger, Kugelgen. 1990. El indio: ¿Barbaro y/o buen salvaje? In La imagen del
indio en la Europa moderna. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas
(CSIC), eds. España: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de Sevilla.
pp.457-487.
Lentz, Carola. 2000. Colonial Constructions and African Initiatives: The History of
Ethnicity in Northwestern Ghana. Ethnos 65(1): 107-136.
Linnekin, Jocelyn. 1983. Defining Tradition: variations on the Hawaiian identity.
American Ethnologist 10(2):241-252.
Linnekin, Jocelyn. 1991. Cultural Invention and the Dilemma of Authenticity,
American Anthropologist 93:446-449.
110
Lofgren, Orvar. 1995. Being a Good Swede: National Identity as a Cultural
Battleground. In Articulating Hidden Histories. Jane Schneider and Rayna Rapp,
edsBerkeley: University of California Press. pp.262-274.
Mallon, Florencia. 1995. Peasant and Nation: The Making of Postcolonial Mexico
and Peru. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Martínez-Echazabal, Lourdes. 1998. Mestizaje and the Discourse of National/Cultural
Identity in Latin America, 1845-1959. Latin American Perspectives, issue 100,
25(3):21-42.
Martínez-Echazabal, Lourdes. 2003. The concept of race as seen through the lens of a
cross-hemispheric perspective. Paper presented on Dec. 10, 2003 conference:
―Reflections on the Hemispheric Dialogues on the Intersection of Latina/o-
Chicana/o-Latin American(s) Studies‖ at the Chicano Latin Research Center.
Meléndez, Guillermo. 1989. Sentido Historico del V Centenario (1492-1992).
Guillermo Meléndez, ed. San Jose: Editorial DEI.
Metha, Uday S. 1997. Liberal Strategies of Exclusion. In Tensions of Empire:
Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World. Frederick Cooper and Ann Stoler, eds.
Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press. pp.59-86.
Miller, Marilyn Grace. 2004. Introduction. In Rise and Fall of the Cosmic Race: The
Cult of Mestizaje in Latin America. Marilyn Grace Miller, ed. Austin: U. of Texas
Press. pp.1-22.
Miller, Paul Gerard. 1922. Historia de Puerto Rico. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Moffit, John F. and Santiago Sebastian 1996. O Brave New People. The European
invention of the American Indian. John F. Mottif and Santiago Sebastian, eds.
Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.
Múcaro-Borrero, Roberto. 2006. Rethinking Taino: A Taino Perspective. In Taíno
Revival: Critical Perspectives on Puerto Rican Identity and cultural Politics.
Gabriel Haslip-Viera, ed. New Jersey: Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton.
pp.139-160.
Nash, June. 1995. The Reassertion of Indigenous Identity: Mayan Responses to State
Intervention in Chiapas. Latin American Research Review, 30:7-41.
Nkrumah, Kwame. 1965. Neo-Colonialism: The Last Stage of Imperialism. N.Y.:
International Publishers.
Olivero, Nilsa. 1996. Discovering indigenous characteristics across time and space:
The Taino women. The Union Institute, The Union Graduate School.
111
Olivier, Laurent. 2004. The Past of the Present. Archaeological Memory and Time.
Archaeological Dialogues 10(2):204-213.
Pedreira, Antonio S. 1946. Insularismo. Ensayos de interpretación puertorriqueña.
San Juan: Biblioteca de Autores Puertorriqueños.
Perdue, Theda. 2004. Race and Culture: Writing the Ethnohistory of Early South.
Ethnohistory 51(4):701-723.
Quijano, Aníbal. 1971. Nationalism & capitalism in Peru: a study in neo-imperialism.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
Quijano, Aníbal. 2000. Coloniality of Power, Eurocentrism, and Latin America.
Neplanta: Views from South. 1(3):533-581.
Ranger, Terence. 1993. The Invention of Tradition Revisited: The Case of Colonial
Africa. In Legitimacy and the State in Twentieth-century Africa. Essays in Honour
of A.H.M. Kirk-Greene. Terence Ranger and Olufemi Vaugham, eds. Hampshire
and London: The Macmillan Press LTD. pp.62-109.
Roberts, Peter. 2006. What‘s in a name, an Indian name? In Taíno Revival: Critical
Perspectives on Puerto Rican Identity and cultural Politics. Gabriel Haslip-Viera,
ed. pp.83-100. New Jersey: Markus Wiener Publishers Princeton.
Rodríguez-Morazzani, Roberto P.1996. Beyond the Rainbow: Mapping the Discourse
on Puerto Ricans and ―Race.‖ CENTRO Journal. 8(1&2):151-169.
Santiago-Valles, Kelvin A. 1999. ―Still longing for de Old Plantation‖: The Visual
Parodies and Racial Nacional Imaginary of US Overseas Expansionism, 1898-
1903. American Studies Internacional. 23(3):18-43.
Santiago-Valles, Kelvin A. 1994. “Subject People” and Colonial Discourses.
Economic Transformation and Social Disorder in Puerto Rico, 1898-1947.
Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.
Santiago-Valles, Kelvin A. 2005. ‗Our Race Today [Is] the Only Hope for the
World‘: An African Spaniard as Chieftain of the Struggle Against ‗Sugar Slavery‘
in Puerto Rico, 1926-1934. Paper presented at the 37th Annual Conference of the
Association of Caribbean Historians in Cartagena, Colombia, May 8-12, 2005.
Scarano, Francisco A. 1993. Puerto Rico. Cinco siglos de historia. San Juan:
McGraw Hill.
112
Scarano, Francisco A. 1996. The Jibaro Masquerade and the Subaltern Politics of
Creole Identity Formation in Puerto Rico, 1745-1823. American Historical
Review. 101(5):1398-1431.
Sebastián, Santiago. 1990. El indio desde la iconografia. In La imagen del indio en la
Europa moderna. Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Cientificas (CSIC), eds.
España: Escuela de Estudios Hispano-Americanos de Sevilla. pp.433-455.
Seda-Bonilla, E. 1961. Social Structures and Race Relations. Social Forces
40(2):141-148.
Segal, Daniel A. 1994. Living Ancestors, Nationalism, and the Past in Postcolonial
Trinidad and Tobago. In Remapping memory: The Politics of Time Space.
Jonathan Boyarin, ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. pp.221-240.
Scheller, Mimi. 2003. Consuming the Caribbean. London and New York: Routledge.
Taylor and Francis Group.
Schwartz, Katrina Z.S. 2006. Nature and National Identity after Communism.
Globalizing the Ethnoscape. Pittsburg, P.A.: University of Pittsburg Press.
Skidmore, Thomas E. 1992. Racial Ideas and Social Policy in Brazil, 1870-1940. In
The idea of race in Latin America, 1870-1940. Richard Graham, ed. Austin:
University of Texas Press. pp.7-36.
Smedley, Audrey. 2007. Race in North America. Origin and Evolution of a
Worldview, third edition. Colorado: Westview Press.
Smith, Anthony D. 1986. The Ethnic Origins of Nations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 1989. Rethinking colonial categories: European communities and
the boundaries of rule. Comparative studies in society and history. 31(1):134-161.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 1997. On Political and Psychological Essentialisms. Ethos
25(1):101-106.
Stoler, Ann Laura and Frederick Cooper. 1997. Introduction: Between Colony and
Metropole. In Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Burgeois World, edited
by Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler, pp.1-56.
Stoler, Ann Laura. 2006. On degrees of imperial sovereignty. Public culture.
18(1):125-146.
Strong, Pauline Turner and Barrik Van Winkle. 1996. ―Indian Blood‖: Reflections on
the Reckoning and Reconfiguring of Native North American Identity. Cultural
Anthropology 11(4):547-576.
113
Suárez-Findlay, Eileen J. 1999. Imposing Decency: The Politics of Sexuality and Race in
Puerto Rico, 1870-1920. Durham and London: Duke University Press.
Sued-Badillo, Jalil. 1978. Los Caribes: Realidad o Fábula. San Juan: Editorial
Cultural.
Sued-Badillo, Jalil and Juan Manuel Delgado. 1991. 500 años de encuentro o
resistencia?: Una reflexión puertorriqueña sobre el significado de la celebración
del V centenario. Cidra, P.R.: Taller de Educación Alternativa.
Sued-Badillo Jalil. 1992. Facing up to Caribbean History. American Antiquity.
57(4):599-607.
Sued-Badillo Jalil. 1995. The Island Caribs: New approaches to the question of
ethnicity in the early colonial Caribbean. In Wolves form the Sea. Neil L.
Whitehead, ed. Leiden: KITLV Press. pp.61-89.
Sylvain, Renée. 2005. Disorderly Development: Globalization and the idea of
―culture‖ in the Kalahari. American Ethnologist 32(3):354-370.
Taylor, William B. and Franklin Pease. 1994. Violence, Resistance and Survival in
the Americas. Native Americans and the Legacy of Conquest. William B. Taylor
and Franklin Pease, eds. Washington and London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Thomas, Nicholas. 1994. Colonialism’s Culture: Anthropology, Travel and
Government. NJ: Princeton University Press.
Thompson, Lanny. 2007. Nuestra islas y sus gentes: La construcción del “otro”
puertorriqueño, 2nd
ed. Rio Piedras: Centro de Investigaciones Sociales.
Trías-Monge, José. 1997. Puerto Rico: The trials of the oldest colony in the world.
Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. 1995. Silencing the Past. Power and the Production of
History. Boston: Beacon Press.
Urciouli, Bonnie. 1996. Exposing prejudice. Puerto Rican Experiences of language,
race, and class. Colorado and Oxford: Westview Press, Inc.
West-Durán, Alan. 2003. African Caribbeans: A Reference Guide. Alan West-Duran,
ed. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
West-Durán, Alan. 2005. Puerto Rico: The Pleasures and Traumas of race. CENTRO
Journal. XVII(1):47-69.
114
Whitehead, Neil L. 1995a. Introduction: The Island Carib as anthropological icon. In
Wolves form the Sea. Neil L. Whitehead, ed. Leiden: KITLV Press. pp.9-22.
Whitehead, Neil L. 1995b. Ethnic plurality and cultural continuity in the native
Caribbean. Remarks and uncertainties as to data and theory. In Wolves form the
Sea. Neil L. Whitehead, ed. Leiden: KITLV Press. pp.91-111.
Williams, Brackette. 1993. The Impact of the Precepts of Nationalism on the Concept
of Culture: Making Grasshoppers of Naked Apes. Cultural Critique, 24:143-191.
Wolf , Eric R.1982. Europe and the People without History. Berkeley, Los Angeles,
London: university of California Press.
Wolf, Eric R. 1990. Facing Power-Old Insights, New Questions. American
Anthropologist 92(3):586-96.
Wolf, Eric R. 1994. Perilous Ideas. Race, Culture, People. Current Anthropology
35(1):1-12.
Yelvington, Kevin A., Neill G. Goslin and Wendy Arriaga. 2002. Whose History?:
Museum-making and struggles over ethnicity and representation in the unbelt.
Critique of Anthropology. 22(3):343-379.
Zenón Cruz, Isabelo. 1975. Narciso descubre su trasero: El negro en la cultura
puertorriqueña. Humacao: Editorial Furidi.
Internet Sources
Barreiro, José. 1989. Indians in Cuba. Cultural Survival Quaterly 13(3):56-60, from
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/41/014.html
Barreiro, José. Taino groups occupy ceremonial site. Indian Country Today, July 29,
2005, from http://www.indiancountry.com/content.cfm?id=1096411349.
Boricua Tributes. Puerto Rican revolutionary Filiberto Ojeda. http://www.virtualbo
ricua.org/Docs/for01.html
Caguas.com.PR. http://www.caguas.com.pr/Default.aspx?tabid=225
Cajiga, Luis Germán. http://www.estudiocajiga.com/reproducciones.htm
Cajiga, Luis Germán.. http://cajiga.net/
Coll y Toste, Cayetano. Guarionex, from http://coquijote.org/Coquijote/
guarionx.html
115
Corretjer, Juan Antonio. Ouba Moin. http://bohiques.tripod.com/taino/id1.html
Corretjer, Juan Antonio. Yerba Bruja, from http://bohiques.tripod.com/taino/id1.html
Delaware Review of Latin American Studies. Some important research contributions
of Genetics to the study of Population History and Anthropology in Puerto Rico:
An interview with Dr. Juan Carlos Martínez Cruzado, Dept. of Biology,
University of Puerto Rico at Mayagüez. Delaware Review of Latin American
Studies 1(2); August 15, 2000; from http://www.udel.edu/LASP/Vol1-
2MartinezC.html.
Ferbel, P.J. 2002. Not Everyone Who Speaks Spanish is from Spain: Taíno Survival
in the 21st Century Dominican Republic. Kacike: The Journal of Caribbean
Amerindian History and Anthropology. pp.1-16, from http://www.kacike.org/
FerbelEnglish.pdf
Foreign Direct Investment. http://www.fdimagazine.com/news/fullstory.php/aid/
852/First_with_FDI:__Puerto_Rico.html
Forte, Maximiliam C. 1998/9. Renewed Indigeneity in the Local-Global Continuum
and the Political Economy of Tradition: The Case of Trinidad's Caribs and The
Caribbean Organization of Indigenous People. Paper Presented at the 24th
Annual
Third World Conference, March 18-21, 1998/9, Swissotel, Chicago IL, USA.,
from http://www.centrelink.org/renewed.html
Forte, Maximilian C. 2001. ―Our Amerindian Ancestors‖: The State, the Nation, and
the Revaluing of Indigeneity in Trinidad and Tobago. Paper presented at the
Fourth Biennial Conference of The Australian Association for Caribbean Studies,
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia, 8-10 February, 2001, from
http://www.centrelink.org/Forte.html
Forte, Maximilian C. 2005. Extinction: The Historical Trope of Anti-Indigeneity in
the Caribbean. Issues in Caribbean Amerindian Studies. 6(4):1-24, from
http://www.centrelink.org/forteatlantic2005.pdf
Gautier Benítez, José. A Puerto Rico, from http://www.los-poetas.com/k/gautier1.htm
Institute of Puerto Rican Culture. Emblem. http://www.icp.gobierno.pr/icp/emblema
.htm
Jiménez, Félix. 2005. The killing of Filiberto Ojeda. The nation. Oct. 7, 2005, from
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20051024/jimenez
116
Landow, George P. The History of Colonial Africa: Selected Bibliography. African
Postcolonial Literature in English in Postcolonial Web.
http://www.usp.nus.edu.sg/post/africa/histbibl.html
Link to Puerto Rico.com. Lista de Huracanes que han azotado a Puerto Rico.
http://www.linktopr.com/huracan_list.html
Lloréns Torres, Luis. La canción de las Antillas, from http://www.itservicespr.com
/nandezfanclub/ipb13/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=2&showentry=5
Lloréns Torres, Luis. A Puerto Rico, from http://coloquio.com/famosos/llorenstorres
.htm
Martínez-Cruzado, Juan C. 2002. The Uses of Mitochondrial DNA to Discover Pre-
Columbian Migrations to the Caribbean: Results for Puerto Rico and Expectations
for the Dominican Republic. KACIKE: The Journal of Caribbean Amerindian
History and Anthropology, retrieved June 10, 2002, from http://www.kacike.org/
MartinezEnglish.html.
Rivera, DeAnna M. Taino Sacred Site Protest. The Caribbean Amerindian Cetrelink
Review. July 26, 2005, from http://cacreview.blogspot.com/2005/07/taino-sacred-
site-protest.html
Rivera, DeAnna M., Roberto Múcaro Borrero and Naniki Reyes Ocasio. Caguana
Ceremonial Center. Sacred Land Film Project, from http://www.sacredland.org/
world_sites _pages/Caguana.html
Tapia y Rivera, Alejandro. El Último Borincano, from http://es.wikisource.org/
wiki/El_%C3%BAltimo_borincano
Tapia y Rivera, Alejandro. La Palma del Cacique, from http://www.cervantesvirtual.
com/servlet/SirveObras/01715185659037176322257/index.htm
Toesing, Gale Courey. 2005. Schagticoke and Eastern Peqout decisions reversed.
Indian Country Today. October 13, 1995, from http://www.indiancountry
.com/content.cfm?id=1096411733
U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census 2000. http://www.census.gov/PressRelease
/www/2001/tables/dp_pr_2000.PDF
Villagómez, Rosita E. 2005. El silenciamiento del sujeto de origen africano en las
letras puertorriqueñas del siglo XIX. A Dissertation submitted to the Department
of Modern Languages and Linguistics in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Florida State University School of
Arts and Sciences, from http://etd.lib.fsu.edu/theses/available/etd-07062005-
124943/unrestricted/VillagomezDiss.pdf
117
Wikipedia. Filiberto Ojeda Rios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filiberto_Ojeda
_R%C3%ADos
Wikipedia. Ramon Emeterio Betances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betances.