Lo cholo como parte de nuestra identidad cultural

Overview

The speaker argues that the label “cholo” is not simply an insult or a racial category, but a culturally constructed identity in Peru. It is shaped historically by colonial racial classifications and later transformed through urban migration from the 1970s onward.

Culture and identity as unavoidable and changeable

• The talk begins by defining culture as a way of life expressed through daily behavior, traditions, and shared imagination.
• The speaker rejects the idea that some societies lack culture: every human group develops culture, and therefore every group has identity. Identities may be “strong” or “weak,” but they cannot be absent.
• For Peru, the speaker claims regional identities are strong (Arequipa, Cusco, Trujillo, etc.), but they don’t automatically combine into a strong national identity because Peru has long-standing social and cultural separations.

Multiculturalism vs. “interculturality”

• Peru is described as multicultural/pluricultural, but the speaker highlights a central problem: one culture often becomes dominant, while others are made subordinate.
• The alternative proposed is interculturality, understood as difference with equal rights rather than hierarchical imposition.

Identity formation through “otherness” and distortion by ethnocentrism

• Identity formation is presented as involving otherness—defining “us” in contrast to “them.”
• The speaker criticizes ethnocentrism/Eurocentrism, arguing that Peru’s social hierarchy has historically been interpreted through the conqueror’s cultural perspective, producing internal contempt (e.g., city over countryside, capital over provinces).

How “cholo” was historically constructed

• The term is traced to colonial times, when Spanish rule imposed racial logic and organized people into separate social orders, such as:
  • a “Republic of Spaniards”
  • a “Republic of Indians”
• The speaker argues that colonial authorities used racialized categories to mark perceived inferiority, including “cholos.”
• The talk also notes competing views on the term’s earlier existence, referencing:
  • Aníbal Quijano as a key social-science reference,
  • María Ros (historian), and work on pre-Spanish linguistic meaning, suggesting “cholo” may have existed earlier with a different meaning (e.g., “good young man” in a northern context).

From racial stigma to an urban culture (1970s onward)

• The speaker proposes that what we now call “cholo” gained broader cultural meaning during the 1970s, when Peru experienced large-scale rural-to-urban migration (especially toward Lima).
• Migrants encountering Western-dominated urban culture respond in two ways:
  1. Inferiority (internalizing the belief that the new culture is superior),
  2. Subversion/recreation—laughing at, transforming, and hybridizing what they find rather than surrendering to it.
• “Cholo” identity is framed as a combination of cultural elements (Andean, Western, African, coastal, jungle influences), evident in everyday life—especially gastronomy and music.

Examples of cultural hybridity

• Gastronomy: used to illustrate mixture, such as:
  • ceviche reflecting multiple origins,
  • anticuchos linked to African-descended culinary contributions,
  • roast chicken paired with potatoes.
• Music: presented as parallel evidence, including:
  • chicha and cumbia, with attention to migrants’ experiences and figures tied to urban adaptation of provincial identities,
  • the emergence of alternative rock scenes, aiding young migrants’ integration.

Positive cultural traits and social meaning

The speaker emphasizes that “cholo culture” represents:

• Perseverance, effort, and sacrifice
• Dreams of progress and upward mobility
• Reciprocity and mutual aid in popular sectors (community ties, kinship, godparent and neighbor relationships)
• Cultural progress that does not erase roots, but carries them into new urban realities.

Political frustrations and lasting “collective unconscious”

The speaker argues that hopes for recognition and progress were repeatedly frustrated:

• The Velasco military revolution is described as an incomplete change.
• Alejandro Toledo’s era is described as another opportunity followed by disappointment.

They also claim that authoritarian or corrupt regimes—especially Fujimori, in the speaker’s view—left enduring negative social habits, such as:

• social climbing “at any cost,”
• hypocrisy,
• normalization of corruption,
• buying/selling honors,

which the speaker argues persist in collective memory and make reform harder.

Final proposal: dialogue with the “new culture”

The conclusion frames the state as needing to:

• stop imposing Western social norms
• instead enter dialogue with the marginalized masses actively shaping a new identity.

The speaker further argues that municipal and regional governments must recognize “cholo culture” as part of Peru’s real identity—rather than something to pity or suppress.

Presenters or contributors

• Speaker/Presenter: Unidentified (not named in the subtitles)
• Referenced contributors/figures:
  • Aníbal Quijano
  • María Ros (María Ros Brosque)
  • Garcilaso (Inca Garcilaso de la Vega)
  • La Vega (as referenced)
  • Miguel Ángel Cornejo
  • José Matos Mar
  • José María Arguedas
  • González Prada
  • Albert (unclear; mentioned briefly)
  • Velasco Alvarado
  • Alejandro Toledo
  • Fujimori