1. Florencia Mallon. "The Promise and Dilemma of Subaltern Studies: Perspectives from Latin American History," The American Historical Review, 99: 5. (December 1994), pp. 1491-1515.

2. Joanne Rappaport. The Politics of Memory: Native Historical Interpretation in the Colombian Andes. Durham: Duke University Press, [1990] 1998.

1. As we read we should keep the three following ideas/topics in mind:

1. The historical consciousness of indigenous peoples

1. myth versus history
2. hot versus cold societies

1. Subaltern groups—what is "the other?"

1. looking at hegemonic groups (Gramschy’s definition) and their ideologies
2. looking at how an indigenous group plays a role within nation building—at how they are an integral part of not in contrast to the nation

1. The actual history of indigenous groups

1. On Memory—Incorporating Past Readings

1. Hobsbawm: looking at "invented traditions" in hot/modern societies versus colonial states. Also, looking at "cold" societies and examining how studying from a different group can play a role in research.
2. Anderson: "print culture" and how to view communities that do not follow this model
3. Halbwachs: looking at "collective memory" in religion and rituals as a social framework

1. General Discussion

1. Western versus Nasa intellectuals—the differences between the two

1. question of literacy (or lack thereof) and yet dialogue is possible between the group and the anthropologist—how is this possible?

• oral tradition based on mythology while using Western methods—really, Nasa intellectuals act as a go-between (e.g., Manuel Quintin Lame).
• Rappaport recognizes the value in both. However, she is working outside of the debate because she is using at written sources and documentation (e.g., Los Pensamientos, myths, land records, archives such as dictionaries and battle accounts from the colonial period)

1. How does she treat the sources and the three different periods and how is she trying to "represent/reflect" these people? (Keeping in mind that this is not done from a subaltern perspective.)

• Land: as a bond with the community
• Geography: becomes important if we accept that history is not linear. It gives a sense of belonging and historical consciousness. Nora believed history was in the past yet, Rappaport sees time as a vehicle through which people can re-live history.

1. How do we define the peasantry?--in relation to periodization? Names of leadership defined the period but this was the case for the elite and intellectuals not the peasantry.
2. How is history structured within the Nasa community?

1. the Nasa place emphasis on genealogy
2. the Nasa’s foundation is on historically important people (e.g., deed goes back five generations (Food for thought: Is this organization of history and memory imposed on by Europeans?)

1. Do the Nasa fit into "Western" categories on memory? Yes, but only with flexible definitions of these categories—we must understand the individuality of the community:

1. look at the rituals that they practice
2. look at the similarities between people—or rather similar needs based on a universal human condition that wants to have a history and locate it in space (memory realm)
3. keep in mind the influences of the power structure on subaltern groups

1. What happens when two different groups/views collide? (e.g., threat of Nasas loosing their land)

1. land documents surface

• serve to prove ownership
• indicate supernatural origin of members of the group

1. Food for thought: How does a historian deal with authenticity of the sources? What became "true" over time? How do we understand the role of the past in our subjects/research?

• Understand that researchers are outsiders
• Try to understand the relativity of the information
• Ask what purpose the information serves—even if the information is not "true."

1. How would a historian studying a subaltern group approach the group and the meaning of their history?

1. we must understand that we are imposing Western thinking
2. Rappaport uses Nasa intellectuals as a "filter"
3. Mallon views the subaltern as part of the major group—not as a separate entity

1. How do we define Rappaport’s work? Is it a historical or anthropological work?

1. she questions objectivity and on what we place legitimacy
2. Rappaport would tend to disagree with LeGoff’s argument of memory (the hierarchy/evolution of memory) and the use of mneumonics and mneumnotechnologies.
3. Rappaport jumps around and thus reminds us of the importance of studying all traditions everywhere (e.g., oral traditions—even within the U.S.)

1. Addressing moral continuity

1. using the past (history) to serve a purpose
2. a community that has leaders (with divine genealogy) that have moral weight due—at least in part—to their tie to the land to which the community is also tied

1. Do historians look for continuity or changes?

1. depends on the school of thought
2. really, it’s a moral dilemma that historians constantly face
3. asking if essence is really a matter of heritage--looking at heritage as the underlying "sameness" despite change in
4. Food for thought: What are the methodological limitations of studying truths/memory?—particularly in subaltern groups?

Magda Kuchadakis
Marisabel Villagomez