Am I not simply who I say I am?

Thinking on Guaman Poma and intention

Reading and discussing Guaman Poma’s “The First New Chronicle and Good Government” for this class has me reflecting on what it means to say who you are.

I use a plethora of labels depending on the moment, person and context to self-describe. My friend just texted me that they love my blog, saying “Of course I would though, it’s an Aquarius blog.” I embody my Aquarius identity label in that context with this person. I receive another text from a friend commenting on the “sarcastic commentary” I provide, which okay might be pretty consistent in most areas of my life, but it is still within the realm of identity. My intention switches but usually can be summed up into the idea of likeability. I want to be loved and respected.

I also don’t know how my views and labelling would hold up across languages. My satire might not translate properly into Spanish and then I become someone who is no longer funny and now problematic. Is that is going on with Guaman Poma’s book? Potentially. I don’t know.

Guaman Poma has me thinking about this because there’s something kind of tragic about his work. This man spent ages translating and transcribing these letters and this book so that it could be widely accessible to the people of his land (including indigenous and occupiers). He schemed of ways to make powerful figures like the Pope and the King connect with his messaging and carefully curated their image of him. He signs off his writing with the label of “author” which clearly he is, but that being his primary label is interesting. He curates an identity and performs within those confines. I’m not questioning the legitimacy of any performance or presentation of self (as all selfs are a performance seemingly), more the context in which we understand it in and the intention of which he labels self.

Now all of those facts don’t take away from the potential harm of the pushing of the Catholic faith, Spanish power and assimilation of Indigenous people. There is active, past and continued harm. It’s just that this kind of reads like a model minority myth interaction. Like in some ways we can not remove Guaman from the context he is in where he is arguably not given the space to be proud of some aspects of his identity and therefore it is easier to sacrifice pieces so it to better be treated, recognized, respected etc. This doesn’t negate his Indigenous identity but to focus on gaining colonial respect within a colonial system makes sense for someone trying to survive. To distance oneself from that identity in this context is to distance oneself from active ongoing harm.

He writes through comparisons trying to create a parallel that feels like a performance that the colonial powers would be more accepting of. I mean this was written with many people reading it in mind, but seemingly the most important readers are the ones with the power to make a change, ie the Spanish authorities. The intention is not to question colonialism but to maybe change some aspects of it (I think?).

Maybe his messaging goes against what I would conceptualize as the messaging of an Indigenous person or maybe it reads exactly like what I thought it would within this context.

Anyway, that’s my initial reaction bc I have to write a paper and have no time to unpack the whole reading rn. I feel more confused in general.