The prejudices and inconsistencies of the historical account

Observations and studies of current or past cultures are always stained by the observer's own culture.

To diminish this effect (eliminating it is impossible), a special effort is required, careful use of language, and above all, meticulously filtering the information to strip it of prejudices.

History, anthropology, archeology and related branches are disciplines deeply influenced by cultural discrimination.

The origin of these sciences was related to the territorial expansion of European empires and, as such, they served, and still serve, to achieve the objectives of dominance, underestimation and exploitation of predatory societies by the "metropolis."

The entire conceptual, classifying and taxonomic structure of the historical, anthropological and social "modern" model is built on categories that served and serve the imperial conquerors and their descendants and continuators.

The typologies used, sometimes dishonestly qualified as scientific, are based on the notion of historical progress, which places empires at the top and dependent towns in the lower seats.

Thus, there is talk of "primitive", "prehistoric", "hunters and gatherers", "incipient farmers" and "Neolithic" people as opposed to "civilized" societies.

All these typological statements can be refuted, or at least questioned.

The cultures of the so-called "paleolithic" peoples, which would be the ones that used the stone to a greater or lesser extent (it is difficult to know how mature it is because stone is often the only material that endures) were based on social, philosophical and spiritual conceptions very diverse and complex, that it is not easy to assess objectively from the point of view of "Western" and "modern" cultures.

Similar concepts can be applied to societies entitled "hunters and gatherers," "incipient farmers," "Neolithic," and "prehistoric."

These qualifiers are used to define the dominated or desired societies to be conquered, in the most convenient terms to justify that conquest.

The use and abuse of words and value judgments for discriminatory purposes makes it difficult to use these concepts objectively.

For that reason we will be very careful with the typologies, so frequently loaded with cultural prejudices.

In America there is not and there was no "prehistory."

From the beginning of the settlement, and even before, this continent lived its history.

Nor were there "Indians." There were Charrúas, Mapuches, Guarani, Quechua and Aymara, but there were no "Indians." This appellation applies to the inhabitants of India, but not of America.

It is not possible that millions of people with ancestral identities are still victims of the error of interpretation of a stubborn sailor.

In short, neither "paleolithic," nor "prehistoric," nor "Indian." 

Nor "primitive", or his almost synonymous phrases, quite euphemistic, "hunters and gatherers", "Neolithic", "incipient farmers" and all the retahila with which some academics and scholars endorse us.