Cacique

A cacique (of taíno), curaca (quechua: kuraka) or lonco (mapudungun: longko, “head”) was the commander of an amerindian community of Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

An controversial word

The term cacique, etimología word taína (bias of the ethnic group arawak) happened to be a concept applied by the Spaniards to certain personalities of the Central American, South American culturas.originarias and Caribbean, with this term they talked about the people whom they had to be able. The Spaniards, when knowing it in those towns ambiguously used, it for the men who had major to be able economic (animal, areas of cultivation, etc.) and more spouses.

The ambiguity persists between the nonspecialistic ones, since many in the same way call cacique to the sovereigns (absolute) of empires (Aztec, quechuas, taínos, etc.) that to the commanders or leaders of small considered populations “without State”, like for example nambikuara. It is so vulgarly “cacique” is called to curacas of Old Peru, to toki, longko and ülmen of mapuche, tuvichá of the guaraníes, etc.

He exists an obvious pragmatic ratio for such type of generalization and reduccionismo appealing to the word “cacique”, nevertheless the one that wants to understand more of the real thing of each ethnic group. (nor that to say of the sociologist and the anthropologist) he must have caution with such indiscriminate use of the word “cacique”.

Some. historians, as Charles C. Mann in its work 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus (2005), has objected the use of the term cacique instead of king to talk about to the American indigenous monarchs, although yes it is used to denominate to the caudillos of the calls Barbarian towns of European History (for example kings of the hunos, the francs, etc.). Cacique was a voice taína that did not use the natives of the rest of the Américas and they generalized it to the Spaniards, although was as if to the kings of Castile he was called sultanes, khanes to them or, for the case, caciques Fernando and Isabel. Nevertheless, still today the term king is used in Castilian for all the monarchs for all time and places, except those of the indigenous America, catalogued almost always like caciques.

Report of the Spaniards with the caciques

He is still revealing the fact that the use of the word cacique actively was promoted by the Spanish monarchy. A real certificate of the 26 of February of 1538 insisted on that any indigenous authority was only call “cacique”, equaling by this it formulates from the humblest capitanejos of little numerous bands to the kings and noble of the extinct pre-Hispanic empires. Special care in prohibiting the processing of “Sir” was put in this document, that in Castilian could imply an effective authority and a reverential treatment, insisting on the matter that:

“… thus it was suitable to our service and Real pre-eminence and we sent to the virreyes and Hearings that do not allow it nor allow and only main caciques can be called and”.

Real Certificate of 1538

Because, although enormous amount of caciques was executed to the din of Conquista, the institution of the chieftainship, in his varied ethnic manifestations, survived during the colonial centuries. And, in fact, it even subsists at present.

But the figure of the cacique not always was comprehensible for the European. Its authority was very relative in the cultural tradition of some ethnic groups. Their decisions were not absolutely binding and its authority finally was submitted to the will of the indigenous mass meetings.

“… many nations and people of Indians do not undergo absolute kings nor gentlemen but communities live in behetría where they are steered by advice of many”.

Joseph de Acosta

A self-government method existed, in which the cacique played a conyutural roll like spokesman, moderator, or making decisions only as opposed to urgent situations. This was especially amazing for the Spaniards. Spain came leaving their own Wars of Coproprietors, that had finalized with strong official attacks against all form of asambleísmo. The conquerors finished assimilated the situation of these tribes to a permanent chaos and negligence of the commander, reason why they understood that the caciques, like individualities, were presindibles.

But whatsoever, within the system of colonial hierarchies the figure cacique, in himself, was considered necessary. As much, in fact, that diverse testimonies exist that assure that during the Colony the selection of the caciques of the towns of Indians was manipulated by landowners and you cure in numerous occasions.

This ambiguous situation added to certain setback of the internal social reports of the indigenous groups product of the crossbreeding, the demographic catastrophe and the uprooting of the people who were sent to the new centers of operation (mines and plantations). Fruit of this cadre, in few cases the cacique was not losing ascending on its community, that included/understood gradually that the effective authority was held in other instances.

Other uses

In some countries (for example Argentina) it is often used figurative and pejorative the word “cacique” to allude to those who the power of “networks clientelares” although nothing hold has to do with the original towns of America.

It is also seen

Wikcionario

• Wikcionario has an entrance on cacique.
• Conquest of America

Notes

1. ↑ Compilation of Laws of Indians, book XV, title 7, law 5; mentioned in Gudrun Lenkersdorf; Caciques or councils: two conceptions of government, Magazine Chiapas, 11, 2001.
2. ↑ Joseph de Acosta, natural and moral History of the Indians, 2ª editing of Edmundo Or' Gorman, FCE, Mexico, 1985.

- Vease also k the Internet sive pa not to look for works ¬¬