Sutijax Jesikawa

Identity crisis at 12,000 feet: “No not mine, yours.”

I don’t know what’s worse, being sized up by someone or watching them flop to prove themselves to you. Foreigners can expect to be asked who they are, and what they’re doing away from home, but the questioning of another’s identity goes far beyond the realm of passports and visas. If there’s one thing we shouldn’t have to prove, it’s who we are, right? Or is it that we’re proving we are who we say we are? Regardless, it’s an exhausting conundrum that I see repeated time and again.

Everyone knows you can’t talk about Latin America without talking about the Spanish conquest and colonization, which sought god, gold, and glory while systematically oppressing the natives for some 500 years. It would be like discussing America without mentioning democracy or its supposed melting pot history of immigration. It’s part of the country’s history and thus identity.

And lately colonization is an incredibly relevant topic for Bolivia because the government is now seeking to systematically decolonize the country; supposedly legitimate in its attempt because it’s the first ever indigenous-led government in Bolivia’s history. Or is it? These days, a Bolivian’s ethnic background is as significant as ever. Evo Morales is celebrated worldwide as the first indigenous head of state in Latin America – a watershed moment in history. But sometimes he’s called upon to “prove it”. Today, after pointing out that he rose from the unions instead of “more traditional” indigenous organizations, someone suggested we should question if Evo “deserves to be called indigenous.” Deserves??? – I didn’t realize your ethnicity was something you earned.

And if someone isn’t being accused of insufficient indigenousness by the right, then lefty intellectuals are romanticizing the native cultures. Having the power to govern yourself is one thing but cultivating revenge is another. I learned a new Aymara word to aid in the cultural division: q’ara, it’s supposed to be a derogatory term to Spanish descendents or white/elite Bolivians, who have been governing the indigenous groups since the republic was founded.

No one ever has the right blood it seems and whatever they claim to have, they’re asked to prove.

My Aymara teacher has the best name: Juan de Dios Yapita. “Juan”, is just John and “de Dios” means “of god” or “from god” or could even mean “God’s”, as in “belonging to God.” Yapita is a great Aymara surname, easily recognizable because it ends in a vowel as all Aymara names do. I love his name so much, I was thinking of changing my own to Jessica de Dios Lynda: “God’s Jessica”, then just adding the vowel at the end for an indigenous effect. Just kidding, I would never change my name; everyone knows, especially Bolivians, that denying your roots only leads to trouble… But then I saw this wooden statue at one of the institutes I’m working with. It’s called, “Mary, Mother of God,” so I assume the woman on her knees is supposed to be Mary and the baby she’s holding is Jesus. The woman has long braids and indigenous facial features and the baby is wearing a chullo (Andean woven hat with ear flaps). But everyone knows, Mary and Jesus weren’t from Bolivia, so what’s that statue all about?


Actually, Juan de Dios (that's not him in the picture) told me an interesting anecdote about this very issue. In Aymara, indigenous language of the Bolivian Altiplano region, there are three pronouns for “we”. First is the “inclusive we”: Jiwasa, which could mean something like “everyone in the room.” Then there is the “exclusive we”: Nanaka, which means us all over here but not you all over there. Finally, there is the combined Jiwasanaka, which means all of us various groups together. Interesting articulation, but when Juan de Dios explained the pronouns to me, he also shared about missionaries using “Nanaka” to distinguish the God of the missionaries from the God of the Indians.

But I guess Bolivia had the last word, because that was a very indigenous baby Jesus. Or was it the missionaries who had the last word, because the indigenous people accepted their Nanaka god?? Should we be proving that Jesus isn’t from South America or be glad the people of the Andes claim him and identify with him, even if it means putting him in a chullo? Does that make him a Jiwasanaka god or does it just symbolize an indigenous culture usurped by a colonial god?

I used to have a mixed race friend who said he was never black enough for his black family and never white enough for his white family. Once he refused to get his social security card replaced after he’d lost it because the paperwork required him to choose only one race. When he tried to hand it in with both the “Black” and “White” boxes checked, the office refused to accept it and said he could only check one, so he left without his card – I thought it very noble of him and hope the world fills up with people who refuse to live in someone else’s box.