peters y ansel adams

bueno sigo con los resumenes, me faltan entradas sobre el viaje de ida y los recorridos por la ciudad. , acompanyando dos amigxs locales en vancouver pero que de golpe aparecieron con nosotros caminando rapidito por el empedrado para ir a ver algo de musica al torcuato taso, perdidos en las callecitas del cementerio chacarita y buscando el mejor flan.


foto desconectada que encontre ayer, el laburo de ansel adams fotografiando a la comunidad japonesa gringa relocalizadadurante la segunda guerra, justo habia leido algo sobre espacio y relocalizacion, pero en canada y aca en las fotos vi la misma estructura espacial claro. un lugar en el medio de la nada, y una estructura de casas iguales en cuadrado, campos de cultivo cuadrados, y la gente sonriente que capturo este tipo.


Peters, Evelyn J. and Wilson, Kathi. 2005. “You Can Make a Place of It. Remapping Urban First Nations Spaces of Identity.” Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 23(3) : 395 – 413
The authors propose to rethink indigenous people internal migrations towards the cities through the literature and framework of transnationalism. These perspectives offer insights in how identities can be rethought in the creative articulations of migrants, who create links with more than one place (their places of origin and destination) and the general stretching of social relations that generate “identities of belonging to more than one place”. They analyze the experience of Canadian urban indigenous, who even without being foreigner unsettle state definitions and delimitations of place. Thus the indigenous movement towards the city challenges the national confinement of indigenous to reservations and the definition of “all other spaces” as settlers ones. If we follow Alonso’s logic (this is my connection not the authors) of the need of creating a particular space as a part of the modern nation building process, the division of indigenous and settlers spaces was one of the founding spatial divisions in Canadian state. The article is based on a series of interviews with urban indigenous people and their strategies to keep connected to their places of origin. They argue that the interviews help to understand the meanings and experiences of the migrants, including the “disjunctures between their expectations - produced through development discourses – and their actual experiences.” (397) As they mention in relation to Ecuadorian migrants to the city of Quito. “These narratives demonstrate how the Western frameworks of meaning that permeate migration theory limit our understanding of processes of mobility and identity construction.” (397) Indigenous urban migrations challenge the state not only by the travel but also by framing claims in a general aboriginality, and a continuity of habitation, displacing the notions of autochthony to a particular bounded land. They add to James Clifford explorations of diasporas the fact that the –rural “homes” of the contemporary indigenous result from a colonial construction of nation states. Even the authors show how the non-presence of indigenous in the city was a result of a spatial dimension of nation, they frame this relation as “relation with to the land” which they identify as an one of the salient elements informing indigenous identities, but it is not very clear how people define these lands, though they point to the tension of lands not just as the reservation territories but a more general and abstract mother earth especially while in the city. They quote other works that refer to the fact that indigenous in the city generally “return” home, some call this “dual-orientation pattern”. It is no doubt an interesting connection and the concepto of land aperas unpacked, yet whether the city is or not claimed as indigenous land appears unproblematized. They focus on how the relation with the land changes with migration and what are the impediments and facilitators for their visits to the reservations or rural communities of origin. They identify three strategies of urban indigenous, keeping connected in the city, traveling back to reserves and participating in urban “panindian” ceremonies. Despite this strategies indigenous marginality is reproduced Indirectly they point to the fact that is not just the presence of indigenous in the city what challenges state spatial delimitations, but also the travel, this “returns”, visits, and also the emphasis fo connection to “the land” -as they frame it- that disrupt the expected ways of being in the city.