Rejoinder
to Roberto “Mukaro” Borrero’s
A Taíno Response to
“The Myth of Taíno Survival
in the Spanish-Speaking Caribbean”
by Gabriel Haslip-Viera (December 14, 2011)

Mr. Borrero is correct in pointing out that the number of people in Puerto Rico who self-identify as “Indian” has increased 49 percent from 13,336 in the year 2000 to 19,510 in 2010. But this is still only less than 1 percent of the total Island population of 3.7 million.

This Puerto Rico Census has, in addition, been seen as a controversial and extremely problematic exercise in racial construction based on bogus U.S. concepts and categories in which the overwhelming majority of Puerto Rican Islanders self-identify as White (76 percent). Many in Puerto Rico were confused and wondered why a U.S. style racial breakdown was re-introduced into the census enumeration in the year 2000 after a forty-year hiatus of not producing such data in conformance to the ideals of the “rainbow” model of race mixture promoted by officials of the Island government.

Some saw the re-introduction of this racial breakdown as a negative and divisive intrusion that would foster increased racial tension and polarization in Puerto Rico. Others, including some who identified as Black (a larger group at 12.3 percent in the 2010 census) saw it positively as an instrument that would highlight and support the struggle against prejudice and the real discrimination experienced by persons perceived to be of sub-Saharan African appearance. Needless to say, the questions and controversies surrounding this complex issue continue up to the present. [1]

Mr. Borrero also challenges me to produce a single document that shows that the Neo-Taínos have claimed a “pure indigenous pedigree.” However, he limits himself to the United Confederation of Taíno People (UCTP) when he issues this challenge. The fact of the matter is that the UCTP is not the only game in town and Mr. Borrero knows this.

There are other NeoTaíno organizations and subgroups that are sometimes in conflict with each other, such as the Jatibonicu Taíno Tribal Nation of Boriken, the Taíno Turabo Aymaco Tribe of Puerto Rico, and the Consejo General de Taínos Borincanos, with the issue of purity coming up in statements on occasion. [2] For example, the “Tribal Charter” of the Taíno Turabo Aymaco Tribe of Boriken states that their tribe “is made-up of: documented and non-documented, pure blood, and non-pure blood descendants of the Taíno Turabo and Aymaco Tribes,” and “pure and non-pure blood descendants of other various Taíno Tribes from the entire Caribbean.” [3]

You also have to be lucky even in the case of Borrero’s UCTP, to find a disclaimer about purity somewhere in the fine print of their elaborate website. Otherwise, the home page and the membership application form simply tells you that the Neo-Taínos are “the descendants of the first ‘American Indians’,” or that the applicant for membership must “solemnly swear” that he or she is “a direct descendant of the group of aboriginal people who are now known today as Taíno/Carib/rawak”-punto/period/finito!

It is also usually the case that the average reader or TV and internet viewer (Latino/a or otherwise) gets the impression that the Neo-Taínos are indeed claiming purity when they read headlines or hear statements or passages that simply state that “We are still here” or “We are the original people” with pictures or videos of dancing individuals wearing feathered headbands and other tribal paraphernalia. The average reader or viewer is normally not privy to the nuances of “blood quantum,” genetic percentages and other issues of significance to the discourses of U.S. based Native peoples. It is also generally the case that the Neo-Taínos do not make reference to their mixed origins unless they are pressed to explain themselves on this issue.

The Neo-Taínos also like to compare themselves to other indigenous groups who also lack purity, but these groups have well established historical traditions that the Neo-Taínos lack (with the exception of certain specific families in eastern Cuba). The Puerto Rican Neo-Taínos cannot point to anything like the broken treaties, the massacres, the forced migrations, the “Trail of Tears,” Geronimo, Little Big Horn, Sitting Bull, and the reservation experience of North American Amerindians from the16th to 20th centuries.

There also has been no recognition of the Puerto Rican Neo-Taínos as an official tribal group by the U.S. or Puerto Rican governments in the way that North American Amerindians have been officially recognized. [4] What we have are long periods of silence, especially in the 17th, 19th and 20th centuries, along with occasional rumors and claims that Indians or “Indian looking” people have been living in isolation in the interior of Puerto Rico.

Mr. Borrero raises the issue of errors, inconsistencies; misinterpretation and misrepresentation in historical writing, but these problems are predictably exaggerated by him and the Neo-Taínos as part of their propaganda. Mr. Borrero also states that “contemporary scholars who cite inconsistencies and errors in the interpretation of the historical record are ignored or ostracized.” This claim is ultimately false. Professional historians and other social scientists are trained to continuously search for new evidence that may result in historical re-interpretation.

It is true that there may be some resistance to the new interpretations from established scholars, but the discovery of important new evidence or the compelling reinterpretation of existing evidence is what often elevates the reputation and status of historians and other social scientists in their particular disciplines. Recent examples include (1) the revised history of early Christianity based on the discovery and re-discovery of suppressed gospels, (2) the revised earlier chronology for the arrival of the first humans in the Americas based on the important archaeological work of Tom Dillehay in Chile, and (3) the revised history of the ancient Maya based on the decipherment of their hieroglyphic writing system.

It’s also an exaggeration to say that oral traditions are “ignored or ridiculed.” The problem with oral traditions when applied historically is that they usually have to be corroborated by other evidence. Oral traditions and expressions may indeed be used to “pass on knowledge, cultural and social values and collective memory,” but these traditions and expressions are not necessarily accurate from a historical standpoint.

They may, in fact, be riddled with myths, inventions, wishful thinking and denial about ethnic and racial origins, past events and so-on. The stories about Aztec origins that have come down to us are a case in point. Peter Metcalf has discussed this problem for anthropologists doing field work in modern settings and how to deal with it in his book They Lie, We Lie: Getting Along with Anthropology (Routledge, 2001).

Mr. Borrero states at one point that, “It is the position of the UCTP that the issue of self-identity should be discussed within the context of the universal right to self-determination.” This sounds very positive, but one of his colleagues, Naniki Reyes Ocasio, a lawyer with a 400 acre farm in Puerto Rico, has other ideas.

It was reported in 2003 that Reyes was using her “legal experience” to obtain “reparations and compensation” for the Neo-Taínos and it’s clear that the key issue for Reyes is the attainment of official recognition for the Neo-Taínos from the U.S. government. She also makes reference to land, water, fishing, hunting, and “our sacred sites” at the end of a YouTube video that is then followed by the statement: “Once we have full sovereignty, right? What does that mean-full sovereignty? We decide…we have the right to protect, manage and caretake, because that’s our-that’s our original instructions.” [5]

These kinds of goals are also articulated by other Neo-Taínos, such as Chief Peter “Guanikeyu” Torres of the Jatibonicu Tribe, He calls for the re-establishment of “a sovereign Taíno Tribal Nation and our own sovereign homeland” (whatever that means).

However, these kinds of Neo Taíno objectives are best summarized by Maximilian Forte, one of the Anglo supporters of the revival movement. He notes that the Neo-Taínos have rejected hybridity or creolization as an ideal and will be able to pursue “indigenous entanglements within the wider societies they inhabit,” participate in the “competition for resources” and become involved in the “the struggle for rights within the politics of the nation state.” [6] In other words, prepare yourself for increased controversy, racial polarization and conflict if these folks get their way.

At another point, Mr. Borrero states that “DNA science simply affirms what our elders have been saying all along — we are the descendants of the original inhabitants of the Caribbean islands and we are still here.” This, of course, is false given the small 10-15 percent Amerindian DNA for the Puerto Ricans sampled recently by Carlos Bustamante and his team. But it’s also not clear who the referent is when he uses the term “we.” Is it Puerto Ricans and other Caribbean Latinos/as in general, or is it just those individuals who claim Taíno ancestry? In any case, the claim is problematic, to say the least – even for some of the NeoTaíno elders that he cites.

For example, “Elder” Jim Runningfox (aka James López) of the “Taíno Turabo Aymaco Tribe,” was shocked to learn that his DNA was 80 percent European, 13 percent Sub-Saharan African, 0 percent East Asian, and only 7 percent Native American, when he had his DNA tested in 2007. In a statement to tribal members, Mr. Runningfox described how he was particularly puzzled by the European and “South Sahara African results,” which he felt were “too high.” He also considered quitting the tribe because of the test results, but was dissuaded by respondents that included an individual identified as “Cacike Coquí” who used the old racist “one drop” (of blood) theory to justify continued membership in the tribe. [7]

Finally, there is the attempt to shut me up, along with other critics of the movement, when Mr. Borrero states that “Taíno descendants do not require the approval of Dr. Haslip-Viera or others to be Taíno,” which, of course, is true as they also crave the approval and official recognition of the U.S. and Puerto Rican governments at the same time. However, I have every right, along with thousands of other Caribbean Latinos/as, to criticize, reject and even oppose the agendas of the Neo-Taínos under the concept (remember?) of “self-determination,” whether they like it or not.

Endnotes

1. The Neo-Taínos may also see the racial breakdown positively because it may assist the group in their effort to attain official recognition as a tribe from the U.S. and Puerto Rican island governments, etc.

2. For example, there seems to be some sort of on-going conflict between the UCTP and the Consejo General de Taínos Borincanos. See http://naciontaino.blogspot.com/ .

3. Text of the charter in author’s possession. The charter does not appear in the Aymaco Tribal website at the present time-perhaps because of a personal crisis experienced by one of the “elders” in 2007 (see text above). The website now states that “We recognize and acknowledge that we are now the Taíno Rainbow people.” See http://www.indio.net/aymaco/index.html .

4. The Neo-Taínos tried to compel the government and governor of Puerto Rico to recognize them as an official group during their forced entry and takeover of the Caguana ceremonial center, museum and archaeological site in the summer of 2005. They have also apparently continued their efforts to obtain official recognition as an autonomous tribal group from the U.S. government through the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs.

5. Matthew Hay Brown, “History of Native People Spurs Debate in Puerto Rico.” Orlando Sentinel (December 26, 2003): http://www.orlandosentinel.com/, and YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6yYyWJTjIg.

6. Maximilian C. Forte (ed.), Indigenous Resurgence in the Contemporary Caribbean: Amerindian Survival and Revival (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), pp. 4-5, 8, 14 and passim. For the comments by Chief Torres, see http://www.lasculturas.com/articles/14-culture-a-identity/22-the-taino-survival.

7. From to March 23-24, 2007
(messages in author’s possession). The “one drop” rule or theory refers to the idea prevalent in the United States and used against African Americans that one drop of Black blood makes a person Black regardless of skin complexion, etc.

Gabriel Haslip-Viera is Professor and Chair of the Department of Sociology at City College and past Director of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies at Hunter College. A specialist in the social history of colonial Mexico and the evolution of Latino communities in New York City, Dr. Haslip-Viera has lectured extensively on these subjects and on the relationship between invented racial identities and pseudo-scholarship. He is the editor of Taino Revival: Critical Perspectives on Puerto Rican Identity and Cultural Politics (2001) and author of “Amerindian mtDNA does not matter: A reply to Jorge Estevez and the privileging of Taíno identity in the Spanish-speaking Caribbean,” Centro: The Journal of the Center for Puerto Rican Studies (Fall 2008). He can be contacted at haslip-viera@ccny.cuny.edu.