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.

 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

iii
 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.

iv
 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

v
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.

vi
 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

vii
 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

viii
 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.

1
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,

2
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
 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‖

6
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).

7
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

8
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 20th-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.

9
 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.

10
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

11
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

12
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

13
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

14
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.

15
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

16
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.

17
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

18
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

19
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

20
will bring to light the processes through which not only ―Taínos‖ became Puerto Ricans

but also Puerto Ricans became ―Taínos.‖

21
 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.

22
Institute of Puerto Rican Culture (IPRC;13approved 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.

23
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).

24
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.

25
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.

26
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

27
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

28
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).

29
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.

30
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).

31
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 19 th
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 19 th 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).

32
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.

33
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

34
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).

35
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 19 th-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)

36
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.

37
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.

38
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.

39
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-

40
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.

41
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).

42
 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).

43
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.

44
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

45
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

46
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.

47
 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.

48
 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.

49
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.

50
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

51
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.

52
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

53
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 19 th-century
(http://www.linktopr.com/huracan_list.html).

54
 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.

55
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

56
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).

57
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).

58
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).

59
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).

60
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).

61
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).

62
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

63
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.

64
(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.

65
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.

66
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

67
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.

68
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.

69
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).

70
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).

71
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.‖

72
―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).

73
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

74
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).

75
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.

76
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).

77
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

78
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

79
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

80
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.

81
 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

82
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.

83
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

84
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).

85
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).

86
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.

87
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).

88
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

89
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.

90
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).

91
research. The next chapter will explore the possibilities for further works, in addition to

providing the conclusions and final remarks.

92
 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

93
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

94
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,

95
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

96
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).

97
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

98
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

99
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

100
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.

101
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.

102
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)

103
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.

104
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

105
 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.

106
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.

107
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.

108
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.

109
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.

110
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.

111
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.

112
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.

113
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

114
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

115
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

116
Wikipedia. Filiberto Ojeda Rios. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filiberto_Ojeda
_R%C3%ADos

Wikipedia. Ramon Emeterio Betances. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betances.

117