Las Casas and Galeano
There seems to be something going in the two texts that we were asked to read, namely Las Casas and Galeano that could be connected to a portion of “Society must be defended” a lecture that Michel Foucault gave in the College of France around 1975 at the College of France. There, he talks about the emergence and the role of the counter-history, or the history that is not written for and by the powerful.
Prior to the emergence of this sort of counter-history, what existed was a sovereign history understood as the history of the celebration and glorification of conquest and might, so history was not so much a way of telling, or relating historical facts, but a way of enhancing the power –understood in the traditional sense of the term- of kings, kingdoms and lineages.
Although Foucault is more specific about the functions of this sort of sovereign history, for he talks about the genealogical and memorial sites of the sovereign history, the reason why these two texts seem to connect is because they are telling the other side of the story. According to Michel Foucault it is with Boulanvilliers “that we go from a history of the established right by telling the story of wars, to a history that continues the war by deciphering the war and the struggle that are going on within all the institutions of right and peace”[1] So in that sense, the two mentioned texts seem to relate to a counter-history that tells the history of the people of Latin America, not necessarily from the point of view of those who directed the conquest, but from a point of view closer to those who endure it.
The focus in the historical account and the relevance of the texts is not meant to serve as an excuse to deviate to the absolute horror of the Conquest, which seems to be the implicit aim of the readings, but to point out how there is an strength in telling those stories, for memory makes people conscious of the wrongs that have and continue being committed in the name of a civilization or an idea.
Although Las Casas text is more direct and specific, for it is a testimony of the injustices that he saw, Galeano’s text is more complex because it seems to connect the history of Latin America to a sort of chronological account that relates what is happening around the world as if telling that not only what happened historically in Latin America is important, but also what happened in the world that directly and indirectly affected Latin America was also important.
[1] Michel Foucault Society must be defended Lecture at the College of France 1975-76, translated by David Macey, picador P171
hollmanlozano 
I’m glad you provided this context to consider these readings: “Prior to the emergence of this sort of counter-history, what existed was a sovereign history understood as the history of the celebration and glorification of conquest and might, so history was not so much a way of telling, or relating historical facts, but a way of enhancing the power” – Nicely put. Much like postcolonial literature not being written by children of the west, these readings diverted from the traditional.
I liked your take on Galeano’s work – I saw others posts stating a bit of confusion with what the point of the text was, but I think you’ve aptly explained the significance of it, that counter-narratives hold empowering affects. And because its in the text, and because I rarely give up the chance to talk about Marx (P. 187), I liked the review of Marx’s change of opinion on the foreign meddling in Mexico. It’s Interesting that he deviated from his favoring of industrial proletarian revolution in later years to see imperialism as a direct threat to the campesino underclass in Mexico, which was largely preindustrial at this point (I believe).
I really enjoyed your connection to Foucault I think that the counter history is a really important point to draw into these readings. I also really enjoyed how Galeano created a sort of historical web with his writings rather than just telling one part of history.