This document discusses the differences between memory and history. Memory is a living phenomenon tied to the present, while history represents the past. The document also discusses how nationalist discourses in some countries imagined the nation in terms of economic progress, modern political institutions, and population whitening, viewing indigenous people as obstacles. It further notes that ensembles constructed over time, such as monuments, draw their meaning from the complex relations between elements, so relocating them could alter this meaning.
This document discusses the differences between memory and history. Memory is a living phenomenon tied to the present, while history represents the past. The document also discusses how nationalist discourses in some countries imagined the nation in terms of economic progress, modern political institutions, and population whitening, viewing indigenous people as obstacles. It further notes that ensembles constructed over time, such as monuments, draw their meaning from the complex relations between elements, so relocating them could alter this meaning.
This document discusses the differences between memory and history. Memory is a living phenomenon tied to the present, while history represents the past. The document also discusses how nationalist discourses in some countries imagined the nation in terms of economic progress, modern political institutions, and population whitening, viewing indigenous people as obstacles. It further notes that ensembles constructed over time, such as monuments, draw their meaning from the complex relations between elements, so relocating them could alter this meaning.
This document discusses the differences between memory and history. Memory is a living phenomenon tied to the present, while history represents the past. The document also discusses how nationalist discourses in some countries imagined the nation in terms of economic progress, modern political institutions, and population whitening, viewing indigenous people as obstacles. It further notes that ensembles constructed over time, such as monuments, draw their meaning from the complex relations between elements, so relocating them could alter this meaning.
nacionalismo maniqueo, con la excesiva veneración de héroes, símbolos e historia
funcionales a la dictadura porfirista“una forma de acción o práctica social, política y cultural
que es construida simbólicamente y tiene un carácter interpretativo y relacional” (Troncoso y Piper 2015, p. 67) https://www.ssc.cdmx.gob.mx/secretaria/estructura/1 La diferencia entre uno y otro ámbito la define Nora (1985, 8) de la siguiente manera “Memory and history, far from being synonymous, appear now to be in fundamental opposition. Memory is life, borne by living societies founded in its name (…) Memory is a perpetually actual phenomenon, a bond tying us to the eternal present; history is a representation of the past.” These discourses imagined the nation as realized in economic progress and modern political institutions, while embracing a project of whitening the population and conceiving “the Indian” as the key obstacle to national unity and development (Knight, 1990, 1992; Vaughan, 1982). “Statues or monuments to the dead, for instance, owe their meaning to their intrinsic existence; even though their location is far from arbitrary, one could justify relocating them without altering their meaning. Such is not the case with ensembles constructed over time, which draw their meaning from the complex relations between their elements” (Nora 1989, 22)