Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Eurocentric perspectives have been primary sources of oppression in Latin America since the
Conquest. Often overlooked because of the need to construct documentary, historical narratives
of genocide and the erasure of entire civilizations, the hegemonic, European monopoly over
images and other forms of representation have nevertheless also enacted another form of
Conquest that could not have happened without being accompanied simultaneously by a regime
of images and representations that legitimized the Conquest in various ways. Implemented
reinforced through hegemonic tools of literacy and the subordination of types of knowledge that
do not coincide with Eurocentrism, domination over indigenous communities has maintained its
oppressive nature through a variety of technologies that range from the literary indigenismo of
structures of communication and representation, the advent of digital visual media nevertheless
digital media movement in Latin America represents a seminal departure from hegemonic tools
communities and revalorizes knowledge traditions that have been continuously perpetuated as
inferior forms of expression and understanding. Additionally, indigenous media organizations’
organizations in Bolivia, open up a dialogue that has historically and presently excluded
Attempting to address the indigenous digital media movement proves problematic in its
phrasing. There exists severe danger in attempting to describe a movement that reaches across
indigenous nations—each of which possesses its own culture, language and traditions—and
colonialism. This paper does not intend to suggest the diversity among and within these
fact. However, as this paper only provides a brief introduction to the extensive and influential
developments within the indigenous digital media movement, the reader should not interpret the
accounts as anything near absolute. Throughout the paper, comparisons will be drawn among
different organizations within the digital media movement that, due to the length constrictions of
the paper, cannot be comprehensively addressed and differentiated. Efforts to limit these
overarching comparisons have been drawn through a focus on specific organizations in Bolivia,
communities within the movement ensure some degree of overlapping. Rather than interpreting
the category of indigenous as inclusive indicators of identity, one should observe how
dominant power structures or, conversely, its prospects for providing deviation from established,
years. Although a significant number of social scientists have suggested the centralized origins
of media and technology point to a continuation of power dynamics between technology owners
within a context of community development and maintenance places new media as a “catalyst
for new interpretations and alternative paradigms” within the field of visual media (499).
Addressing pervasive opinions regarding the technological system’s tendency to reinforce power
structures, Srinivasan draws attention to initiatives that examine the empowerment potential of
digital media within indigenous communities. He addresses publications that examine how
diasporic identities and share resources that can enable collective political and social causes to be
realized” (498). Citing anthropologist Faye Ginsburg’s examination of Inuit community and its
creates an opportunity for communities to produce and circulate their own understandings of
contemporary realities. Additionally, digital media redirects the role of the routinely subjugated
into one of producer and broadcaster (500). It is a newly appropriated role that can be seen in
various autonomous organizations within the digital media movement in Latin America, perhaps
most notably demonstrated through the efforts of the Cinematography Education and Production
reaches beyond Bolivia’s borders, with organizations spanning from Mexico to Brazil,
organizations within Bolivia have achieved remarkable strides in digital media production and
practices of collective indigenous contributions across communities. Quite possibly the most
notable organization, as well as the most frequently referenced in publications on the indigenous
digital media movement, is the CEFREC. Assistant Professor of Latin American Media and
Cultural Studies at the University of California Freya Schiwy credits the initiatives of CEFREC
as fundamental in establishing Bolivia and the Amazon Region as the most dynamic and
influential area within the indigenous digital media movement in Latin America (25). Cited as
technical training in film and video for the indigenous peoples of Bolivia and to assist in
producing and distributing their work” (Kalafatic). In addition to providing tools and resources
for digital media production, CEFREC remains vitally engaged in the establishment and
media messages and productions. Not only does the organization aim to counteract Western
groups within the realm of protest and poverty in mainstream Bolivian media—but it also seeks
construction of a political and ideological consensus which incorporates both dominant and
dominated groups” (Strinati 165). Essentially, hegemony is persuaded and perpetuated through
systematic construction of ideas that are meant to suggest the legitimacy of those in a position of
power and to secure consent from subordinated groups. Again, the previously-mentioned variety
reduction of ethnic and cultural diversity to the racial category of the ‘Indian’” in her book
Indianizing Film, positioning the productions from the digital media movement as direct
confrontations of the violation and simplification of the complexity of the indigenous identity
(44). The variety in genres reinforces a fundamental message of the digital media movement:
although indigenous groups have found unity in their struggles against dominating forces, their
strength through union cannot and should not be equated with similarity of ethnic and cultural
identity.
institutions that fail to provide sufficient spaces for communication and dialogue. On its website,
the organization instead designates itself as a service organization “. . . porque surge con el fin de
transforming society and enforcing indigenous peoples’ rights. The organization’s emphasis on
the uniqueness of digital media comes into play: the speed and distance with which digital
images can travel creates a network of indigenous, intercultural communication and reflection
that is outside the realm of hegemonic control and domination. One only need look at the
CEFREC website to observe the breadth and scope of this intercultural network.
CEFREC has two primary websites: one can be found on the Smithsonian’s National
Museum of the American Indian-affiliated Native Networks Server, and the other website can be
found on the website for “Plan Nacional Indigena Originario de Comunicación Audiovisual.”
For the purposes of highlighting the extensiveness of the indigenous digital network in Latin
America, only the Native Networks’ website has been analyzed since it provides more
indigenous-produced video, film and radio in the Americas and Hawaii. The website provides
two regionally-specific close-ups of both Bolivia and Mexico and additionally lists over 330
people involved in the digital media movement, ranging from film directors and producers to
featured actors and hip-hop artists. With each person listed, a link is provided further clarifying
and expanding their background and contribution to the indigenous digital media movement.
Additionally, where appropriate, the website includes the indigenous nations with which the
person identifies. Briefly browsing the included nations—ranging from the Andean Quechua to
the Canadian Métis, from the primarily-Chilean Mapuche people to the Michoacán-centered
Networks. The website also includes comprehensive resource lists, ranging from country-
specific film, video and radio organizations to scheduled film festivals and resources for young
media makers. Additionally, the website provides descriptive links to more than 800 films
produced and distributed by indigenous media organizations since 2001 (“Native Networks”).
The Native Networks Organization warrants additional, separate research due to its wide-
reaching efforts; however, the CEFREC’s affiliation with the Native Networks demonstrates the
intricate relationships and connections developing among organizations and members of the
proves crucial to examine the organizations’ efforts of self-representation within the context of
colonial legacies of representation—legacies that have remained constant despite the various
transformations they may undergone. Although political colonialism has been eliminated,
knowledge that do not coincide with Eurocentrism. As stated by sociologist Aníbal Quijano in
his essay “Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality,” colonial repression “. . . fell, above all, over
the modes of knowing, of producing knowledge, of producing perspectives . . . these beliefs and
images served not only to impede the cultural production of the dominated, but also as a very
efficient means of social and cultural control, when the immediate repression ceased to be
constant and systematic” (169). Essentially, this external form of repression created internal
reflections and devaluations of beliefs and images that did not fall within Eurocentric constructs.
What’s more, the internalization of Eurocentric ideas of acceptable knowledge helped enforce
and perpetuate European hegemony through denigration of other forms of knowing. The
colonial monopoly on distributed and disseminated images not only created exclusive
representations of the subjugated, but also enforced complacency under implemented attitudes of
inferiority.
Moreover, the end of explicitly political colonialism often undermines the continuing
patterns of domination that directly stem from the European Conquest of the Americas. Quijano
well as the most general form of domination and exploitation. He traces coloniality’s origins
from the social construction of race as a form of imposed sociopolitical hierarchy to the
forms of knowing. Highlighting patterns of coloniality among the Americas, Asia and the
Middle East, Quijano presents Latin America as the area most devastated by the cultural
repression of European colonization. He substantiates his claim by positing that the combination
conditions of repression. The cultural destruction witnessed in the Americas could not be carried
out with such profundity and intensity in Asia and the Middle East. Moreover, the combined
physical and cultural destruction and denigration created illiterate subcultures condemned to
enforced external representations. More specifically, “. . . the survivors would have no other
modes of intellectual or visual formalized and objectivised expressions, but through the cultural
patterns of the rulers” (170). Not only must the digital producers and creators within the
movement confront coloniality and its subsequent monopoly over images and erasure of cultural
forms of knowing, but they also must strive to revalorize knowledge traditions that had been
This colonial monopoly over images has not only been addressed in the media
productions from the movement, but also through festival assemblies and discussions. During a
2007 tour across Bolivia, various social communicators from CEFREC and similar indigenous
media organizations, such as the Bolivian Indigenous Peoples' Audiovisual Council (CAIB)
which is co-coordinated by CEFREC, held free screenings of various films produced and
distributed by the organizations. After one screening, co-director of CAIB Humberto Claros
reflects on the efforts of CEFREC-CAIB, stating “. . . it has been ten years , the process of
constructing a communication that’s truly indigenous, from this concept, this vision, of being
authors of our own image” (“For the People, By the People (Part 1 of 2)”). In this moment,
Claros not only addresses prior exclusions of indigenous authors in representation and image
CEFREC by stressing the importance of collectivity in the process of digital media construction
—a process that reflects the Andean cosmology of collective communities. This foundational
well as a communal process, adds a unique and vital characteristic to the indigenous digital
media movement, as well as enhancing the movement’s efficacy and influence. More
specifically, this emphasis on the collective community not only serves as a revalorization tool
for Andean cosmological beliefs regarding the community as a resource, but also ensures a
process of collaboration that both limits exclusion of particular indigenous communities and
Indeed, two key figures in the indigenous media movement in Bolivia, Jesús Tapia,
president of the Bolivian Indigenous People’s Audiovisual Council (CAIB), and Ivan Sanjinés,
filmmaker and cofounder of CEFREC, stress the idea of the indigenous digital media movement
as a process rather than a product, and a transcultural process at that. In an interview conducted
with New York University anthropologist Jeff Himpele, Sanjinés continually refers to the work
of media organizations such as CEFREC as process rather than simple video production,
resources, social organizations, and cultural principles and imagery into a representational form
that extends beyond the completed videotape” (357). The stated process, with its emphasis on
collective contribution rather than credited, individual authorship, reflects goals of improvement
in representation and revalorization of the indigenous community. What’s more, the process
identified by Sanjinés echoes the movement’s desire to address gaps of representation left in the
wake of Bolivian State social institution development (Kalafatic). These gaps include, but are
not limited to, the previously-mentioned restrictions placed on indigenous identity and the
the diversity among indigenous peoples in Bolivia, citing the 36 indigenous groups in Bolivia,
each of which possesses its own language and belief system (“For the People, By the People
(Part 2 of 2)”). The collective input from various indigenous groups required and encouraged by
CEFREC helps to undermine, question, and reevaluate previous restrictions on group identities
communication that not only strive to distribute indigenous media productions, but also create
reciprocally appraising methods of evaluation. These analytic approaches aim to ensure constant
evaluation and questioning of possible motives of profit maximization, hindering the possibility
of developing capitalist reflections within the digital media movement (Schiwy 326). Following
the guidelines established by the National Indigenous Plan for Audiovisual Communication,
Development and Empowerment in 1996, these organizations conduct regular processes of self-
and reciprocal-evaluation of the Plan’s impact within and among the organizations.
Concurrently, the evaluative processes valorize the idea of teamwork and continued active
by CEFREC and the CAIB and with participation from Bolivia’s three primary indigenous
Workers Sole Syndicate (CSUTCB), and the Bolivian Settlers Syndicate Confederation (CSCB)
—the Plan aims to both reinforce the necessity of community participation as well as avoid
detrimental goals of capitalist profiteering (Kalafatic). Indeed, Schiwy has credited the Plan for
its successes in partially bypassing the capitalist hegemonic market for cultural diversity through
its rural circulation plans and integral production practices (326). Additionally, the indigenous
digital media movement circumvents the use of literacy as a tool of hegemony in its distribution,
Literacy as a tool of hegemony has not only served as an exclusionary force of illiterate
populations in Latin America, but has also proved essential in the continuation of power
structures of knowledge deemed acceptable by the majority. Ángel Rama, the late Uruguayan
literary critic, coined the term “the lettered city” to describe the “. . . continuity in the collusion
of power, knowledge and technologies of representation from the colonial period to the present”
(Schiwy 23). According to Rama, literacy as a production of knowledge serves to create a class
of “lettered men,” who create and manage constructions and images of reality, often in the
service of the State—a constructed reality that continues 500 years after explicitly political
colonialism ended. What’s more, the denigration of forms of knowledge that fell outside the
lettered city excluded any non-written participation in the discussion (Schiwy 31). The
domination over images served as sources of social and cultural control through external
In Indianizing Film, Schiwy suggests that the indigenous media movement does not seek
integration into hegemonic structures, choosing instead to create a system of production and
distribution that circulates through autonomous organizations. Her suggestion regarding digital
media provides a fundamental point of departure from the goals of literary indigenismo since
literary indigenismo sought integration and assimilation into the dominant culture. Literary
indigenismo has received much criticism regarding the nature of its representation—a
representation of indigenous experiences that does not in fact involve actual indigenous
indigenous groups but rather “. . . expression in the name of indigenous communities and
individuals. In the most general terms, indigenismo inhibits or detracts from indigenous self
representation in both a political sense as well as an aesthetic or symbolic sense” (76). Although
indigenismo initially appears to be an attempt to reconstruct a voice that has been silenced
historically, excluding indigenous involvement perpetuates the forced passivity that colors
historical texts. The marginalization of indigenous people from their own representation
reenacts patterns of domination that indigenismo was presented as aiming to combat. What’s
more, the nature of “lettered production” proved in itself to be a method of exclusion. More
specifically, at the beginning of the 20th century, writing and reading were unavailable
technologies to a large majority of indigenous populations. Most indigenous people could not in
fact read works of indigenismo (Cornejo Polar 20). Not only were indigenous peoples denied the
opportunity to represent their communities, but they were also excluded from participating in and
exchanging ideas in the indigenismo movement. The indigenous digital media movement, in the
nature of its product, as well as in its forms of distribution, collaboration and discussion,
Although digital media and Rama’s “lettered city” could be regarded as separate
technologies and therefore difficult to compare and evaluate, Schiwy adopts an interesting
position regarding the continuation and transformation of hegemony from the literary to the
issue of literacy as a tool of hegemony could be interpreted as increasingly obsolete with the
advent and increasing popularity of audiovisual media. However, Schiwy positions trends of
simplification of indigenous identity that has undergone various visual alterations from its
literary origins: from painting to photography, from imagined simplicity to insinuated barbarism.
According to Schiwy, these representations form an essential component of Rama’s lettered city,
reflecting imperial, imagined histories of savage populations waiting for the civilizing forces of
European colonialism. Schiwy traces these visual representations and presents cinema as a
transformed version of the lettered city, stating movies “. . . became an important tool for
visualizing the tropes and metaphors of conquest and colonization put forth by literary accounts
and human exhibitions” (34). Essentially, she suggests the increasing popularity and
pervasiveness of the mainstream movie industry simply continues the limited representations of
indigenous peoples introduced through the institution of literature. Convincingly, she argues that
mainstream media is in fact a extension of power for the visual economy of the “lettered city.”
in the past—remains a trend that organizations like CEFREC constantly address and combat. In
indigenous actors from UNITEL, a Bolivian television network. Citing Bolivia’s largely-
indigenous population, Claros employs the example of the television network to illustrate the
failure of mainstream media to reflect Bolivian reality. He ends his discussion on the absence of
media: “sometimes we think they’re media that don’t live in Bolivia” (“For the People, By the
People (Part 1 of 2)”). Digital authors within the indigenous media movement consistently
confront these representational constructions of reality that do not in fact reflect their own reality
presence of indigenous protagonists onscreen; consequently, they also create landmark prospects
for indigenous audiences to see a far more thorough representation of their respective realities.
Moreover, indigenous actors in the media movement once again reinforce the importance of
community over the individual. It is an emphasis on the communal product that is illustrated by
actor Reynaldo Yujra, who portrays the campesino, or farm worker, protagonist in the 1989 film
La Nación Clandestino (The Clandestine Nation). In an interview, Yujra stresses his role as a
representative rather than as an actor. He distinguishes productions from the media movement as
committed rather than commercial cinema—cinema that is made for the members of indigenous
what’s happening now. I am representing the town, the Bolivian society so that they can
understand the message I’m transmitting” (“For the People, By the People (Part 1)”). Yujra’s
statements represent two fundamental emphases of the indigenous digital media movement: the
importance of community in all stages of media development and production, and the
The media productions of CEFREC not only provide an indispensable space onscreen for
Eurocentric forms of knowledge transmission have been historically and presently disparaged as
inferior forms of knowing. Having already highlighted the role of literacy in perpetuations of
domination and subsequent subjugation, it’s important to examine the broader traditions that
undermine transmissions of knowledge falling outside of the “lettered city.” Creations within the
movement not only offer an unparalleled introduction of alternative forms of knowing to digital
film, but they also often cast these modes of understanding as essential resources (Schiwy 51).
These trends in the media movement offer two essential functions that address historical
inheritances and current conditions. First, they insert historically-overlooked and disparaged
knowledge traditions into a public space that creates opportunities for discussion, reflection and
veneration. Second, they present these conventions as resources for change and improvement in
modern, present-day society. Essentially, they dispute the age-old, hegemonic attitude of
knowledge.
The term “subaltern” itself demands further elucidation. Historian and cofounder of the
Subaltern Studies Group of South Asia Ranajit Guha provides a rather concise and
straightforward working definition, positioning the world subaltern as “. . . a name for the
general attribute of subordination . . . whether this is expressed in terms of class, caste, age,
gender and office” (Staten 111). In his book Subalternity and Representation, Professor of
Hispanic Languages and Literatures at the University of Pittsburgh John Beverley takes Guha’s
definition one step further. He places the subaltern within an academic context and cites
knowledge practices (2). More specifically, academic institutions place an almost absolute
emphasis on the value of the written word that obeys established, academic guidelines above all
other forms of understanding. What’s more, the resulting representations of these subaltern
forms of knowledge, which employ academic disciplines that do not coincide with the
participation of authors that fall outside the realm of established academia. Although the topic of
subaltern studies warrants an entirely different examination in and of itself, it proves useful to
address the extensions of knowledge denigration—from the social, to the political, to the
Schiwy addresses the denigration of indigenous traditions in her book Indianizing Film,
citing the classification of many subalternized forms of knowing as superstitions and devils’
worship. She goes on to state, “. . . they have been transformed and hidden along with the
multiple material and embodied forms of signifying that transmit alternative ways of life and
understanding . . . indigenous media activists seek to convert these subalternized viewpoints into
‘protagonists’” (40). By placing these historically-hidden traditions on film and making them
available to the mostly-rural audiences viewing them, the productions give presence to these
protagonists and, consequently, positioning the beliefs as central figures in the digital
storytelling, the films identify these modes of understanding as essential resources for
irrelevant are now cast as important resources for thinking otherwise” (41). Not only are the
films providing a long-absent space of discourse for alternative forms of knowing, but they are
El Grito de la Selva (The Cry of the Jungle) is a production that reflects the revalorization
audiovisual production filmed in the Bolivian Amazon and created by the indigenous Mojenos of
Beni, the film won the award for Best Fiction with Indigenous Participation in the Ninth
International Festival of Indigenous Film and Video in La Paz (Rivero). It has proven difficult to
obtain access to the filmic materials this paper hoped to consider, not to mention feature-length
productions. Consequently, only the trailer for El Grito de la Selva proved readily available for
analysis. In a way, the difficulties in obtaining digital media productions in the United States
feels somewhat appropriate, since organizations like CEFREC remain very forthright with the
intended, target audience: indigenous and peasant communities. Problems with material access
feel suitable and humbling for those who fall outside of the goals in spectatorship—a
trailer is referenced. However, observations on the trailer are not meant to be interpreted as
Based on real events in Bolivia in 1990 and 1996, El Grito de la Selva depicts two
historic marches of the lowland Beni protesting the abuse and exploitation of an illegal logging
company. The trailer classifies these marches as “. . . por el territorio y por la dignidad3.”
Several scenes in the six-minute trailer provide examples of the revalorization of culturally-
specific indigenous traditions of knowing. For instance, one scene depicts a woman silently
communicating with a tree that begins to bleed. The woman’s grief-stricken howl demonstrates
the severity of the situation. What’s more, the depicted connection with the land creates a
privileged position from which to speak, or more specifically, casts the wailing woman as a
figure of authority in knowledge. Schiwy points to the central focus of land in indigenous
struggles against colonialism and then extends that focus as a transformed and newly-acquired
“. . . grounds from which to speak” (147). Effectively, the woman’s insight into nature casts her
as an important figure of influence. She reflects the views upheld and stated by CEFREC that
denies the possibility of a universal, objective, complete worldview from one particular
standpoint. Once again, the filmic productions reflect CEFREC’s view that Western knowledge
does not deserve its hegemonic status, but rather should be categorized as a contribution to multi-
There is danger in highlighting the woman’s communication with nature because it does
indigenous as beings in accordance with the natural world. What’s more, these images rarely
extend beyond the reduction of indigenous identity to intimacy with nature. It is not this paper’s
intention to suggest that the scene provides a rigid, absolute identity marker of indigenity.
3
“. . . for territory and for dignity”
Rather, the scene should be taken as an example of one instance depicting one possible form of
knowledge that gives authority to the wailing woman and provides necessary insight that
contributes to a better-rounded world understanding. Her interaction with nature cannot and
should not be construed as representative of all indigenous nations and communities, nor should
it be treated as the most relevant identity marker of the Beni nation. Instead, it should taken as
understanding.
The wailing woman proves to be one of many women featured in the trailer that act as
protectors of culture and tradition and also point to the reclaimed importance of women in the
context of what Schiwy terms “the patriarchal gaze of Empire,” a significant trend among
productions in the media movement. Indeed, the trailer features women leading discussions on
the necessity to protect the land and inciting the support of other members of their community.
The trailer includes text that reads as follows: “. . . mujeres desafiantes que avanzan al encuentro
de un mejor futuro4.” By casting women as upholders of value and belief systems, El Grito de la
Selva not only follows the larger tradition within the movement of countering the gender-
specific, colonial gaze of acceptable authority, but also depicts the role of women as symbolic
bearers of indigenous identification—those who transmit social memory (Schiwy 109). They are
both confronting colonial extensions of gendered subordination and reflecting ideas of women as
credible, viable modes of knowing that contribute an understanding among many understandings
correspond to the goals of organizations like CEFREC. What’s more, these forms of
undermining the common, mainstream conception of indigenity as solely relevant in the past.
4
“. . . defiant women advancing to meet a better future” (translation author’s own)
The indigenous digital media movement in Latin America represents a fundamental
struggle within and among indigenous communities: indigenous protagonists do not have a clean
slate on which to represent themselves. More specifically, efforts of organizations like CEFREC
must address and attempt to reconstruct external representations that have been forcibly handed
down to them for 500 years—representations that have denigrated cultures, relegated vast ethnic
diversities to the category of "Indian," and perpetuated patterns of colonial subjugation. Yet, the
audiovisual productions being produced today address more than misrepresentation and
exploitation through constructed realities. They must also address the ways in which modes of
understanding have been transformed into a hegemonic construct of totality—the ways in which
a Eurocentric perspective has been presented as the only feasible world viewpoint. The nature of
digital media—with its ability to convey and mirror traditions of orality, through the combination
space in which to address these issues of denigration and distortion. It provides a space that
remains outside the hegemonic tool of literacy, which has been used as a method of intimidation
and exclusion for centuries. What’s more, organizations like the CEFREC make consistent,
conscious efforts to avoid power structures that do not foreground the community and emphasize
extensive scope of the indigenous digital media movement indicate that this is a new age of
representation. It is a new age that is not solely based on transformations in modes and tools of
forms of understanding. Rights that have been pervasively denied through hegemonic constructs.
Rights that have been undermined and appropriated by those in power. Rights that have
Beverley, John. Subalternity and Representation: Arguments in Cultural Theory. Durham: Duke
<http://www.plandecomunicacionindigena.org/empresa/portal/default.asp?cg1=18>.
Cornejo Polar, Antonio. "Indigenismo and heterogeneous literatures: Their dual socio-cultural
logic." Journal of Latin American Cultural Studie.s 7.1 (1998): 15-27. Informaworld.
“For the People, By the People (Part 1 of 2)” 03 March 2008. Online video clip. YouTube.
v=yKRW5wOsDUQ&feature=related>
“For the People, By the People (Part 2 of 2)” 03 March 2008. Online video clip. YouTube.
Himpele, Jeff. "Packaging Indigenous Media: An Interview with Ivan Sanjinés and Jesús Tapia."
American Anthropologist 106.2 (2004): 354-63. Academic Search Premier. Web. 8 Apr.
2010.
"Native Networks." Native Networks / Redes Indigenas. Smithsonian Institute, 2004. Web. 4
Classical Music, Jazz, Opera, Dance, Movie, Cuisine, and Travel Tips: Interviews,
<http://www.culturekiosque.com/nouveau/cinema/indigenous_filmmakers_bolivia.html>.
Quijano, Aníbal. "Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality." Cultural Studies 21.2-3 (2007): 168-
Rivero, Gerson. "El Grito De La Selva, Premiado En Festival De Cine Indígena." El Deber.
<http://www.eldeber.com.bo/2008/2008-09-26/vernotaescenas.php?id=080925222945>.
Schiwy, Freya. "Digital Ghosts, Global Capitalism and Social Change." Social Identities 15.3
Schiwy, Freya. Indianizing Film: Decolonization, the Andes, and the Question of Technology.
Schiwy, Freya. "Indigenous Media and the End of the Lettered City." Journal of Latin American
Cultural Studies 17.1 (2008): 23-40. Academic Search Premier. Web. 5 Apr. 2010
International Jopurnal of Cultural Studies 9.4 (2006): 497-518. Sage Publications. Web.
10 Apr. 2010.
Staten, Henry. "Ethnic authenticity, class, and autobiography: The case of Hunger of Memory."
PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America 113.1 (1998): 102.
Print.
Taylor, Analisa. "The ends of indigenismo in Mexico." Journal of Latin American Cultural
Studies (13569325) 14.1 (2005): 75-86. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 20
Jan. 2010.