El Diario, October 1982

     The October 1982 edition of El Diario held a lot of stories you might expect to find. Within its bounds were numerous articles covering Siles' election and inauguration, his policies and platform. In it too, one can find articles and advertisements emphasizing the harsh economic crisis of the time. There were articles surrounding the collapse of tin. One advertisement illustrated and detailed the new 500 boliviano bill. These articles are to be expected. Interesting and informative, but expected.
      What I found surprising within the folds was a fairly consistent theme of colonial images. This follows some reason in that I recovered the October edition of the paper, the month in which Columbus landed in the Americas. These cartoons and images ran similarly to what I have been seeing in La Paz and similarly to what we have discussed in class in terms of Bolivian history. Several political cartoons depicting Columbus or his ships appeared, but in a way that surprisingly glorified the conquest. Further cementing this idea were the pictures published on October 13 (the day after Columbus Day). Front page and the very first pictures one would see were two images commemorating the anniversary. Featured were the Spanish ambassador in La Paz and other Spanish diplomats who spoke on the historical matter. Words such as "Dia de la Raza" y "descubrimiento" were used to frame this history in a positive light. These words suggest an idealizing of the event, turning it away from an obliteration and domination, and instead towards "discovery" or an "encounter." This tune has largely changed in modern day and according to modern scholars, who now recognize and publicize the staggering and heartbreaking atrocities of the time. Still puzzling, however, is the presence and impact of colonial history in modern society and culture. Why do we still see the statue of Columbus in the central section of the city? How do Bolivians today see that statue? And how do Bolivians, both of European and indigenous descent, see this important historical distinction? Is there a difference in how the distinction is taught, even to this day?