Cerro El Cono a Suposta Pirâmide Com 400m de Altura Que Fica na Amazônia?

Cerro El Cono a Suposta Pirâmide Com 400m de Altura, localizada na reserva de Sierra del Divisor, na divisa do Brasil com o Peru. O mistério do Cerro El Cono a suposta pirâmide com 400m de altura. Por décadas foram descobertas pirâmides em diferentes partes do mundo, que eram desconhecidas da humanidade. É possível que uma delas encontra-se na enigmática Amazônia, Cerro El Cono, na Sierra del Divisor ​​é uma espécie de ilha em formato de montanha que não pertence à cordilheira andina.

why are you against the use of the term anthropocene

Well, I’m not totally against its use; I think it can be useful, especially in discussions in popular mediums outside of academia. But I do think that academic discussion of and much of the popular discourse around and involving that term, especially among Euro-American scholars, is Eurocentric and pedantic. Eurocentric, in the sense that the discourse ignores Indigenous criticisms while simultaneously appropriating Indigenous cosmologies and accepting funding/concessions from (neo)colonial institutions. Pedantic, in the sense that the discourse is too focused on finding a specific start-date; too focused on fossil fuels and not enough attention is given to the arguably more-influential role of industrial-scale agriculture throughout human history; and not enough discussion of the human institutions (social hierarchies built to facilitate empires and resource extraction) that inflict social and ecological destruction. I do sometimes like the term as a rhetorical device, but prefer terms like “Plantationocene” which are more specific about which institutions and imperial cosmologies are most influential in provoking both violence against humans and ecological change and apocalypse.

You have probably heard of alternate proposed names for the same era of human influence: Plantationocene, Capitalocene, Cthuluscene. I agree that the distinction matters, and many people (especially Indigenous people and others from Latin America and the Global South) have written about the importance of this name. Indigenous writers and scholars have, in my opinion and not surprisingly, offered the most biting criticisms of Anthropocene discourse. From the perspective of North America, I enjoyed the writing of Dwayne Donald (Papaschase Cree); Zoe Todd (Metis); Kali Simmons (Lakota); and Kyle Whyte (Potawatomi); all of whom write explicitly about the Anthropocene, the ethics of ascribing a name to this era, its Eurocentric discourse, and alternative Indigenous interpretations of global environmental history. And if my rambling is annoying and if this post seems too absurdly long to read, then I would recommend reading what Zoe Todd has written about the importance of how the name of the era influences narratives told about human social and ecological stories; she also addresses other shortcomings and Eurocentric aspects of the Anthropocene concept: Heather Davis and Zoe Todd. “On the Importance of a Date, or Decolonizing the Anthropocene.” December 2017. 

—–

Here’s how I feel about the term “Anthropocene”:

Assuming we agree that the intertwined forces of colonialism, imperialism, industrial-scale agriculture, resource extraction generally, and the hierarchical social institutions which support them (including forced labor, severance of community connection to ecosystems through closure of the commons, racial and gender hierarchies, and Indigenous dispossession) are basically the major influences on global ecological change now and over the past few centuries or millennia (including the present-day, the era of overt European colonization across the globe, and earlier manifestations in historical “classic” state-building and early ancient hydraulic civilizations): Instead of looking for a specific date sometime around 1822 in Europe when fossil fuel emissions scarred the soil, like a technical geologist might, I instead try to ask at which point industrial-scale resource extraction (especially including agriculture and deliberate devegetation campaigns even in its ancient manifestations), supported by and to the benefit of social hierarchies and imperial worldviews, begin to alter soils at vast continent-wide scales enough to be the planet’s leading driver of change in soils, vegetation, oceans, and atmosphere?

Did it begin with the advent of industrial specialist guilds in Mesopotamia, when kings would bribe irrigation engineers not to help a farmer water their fields until the farmer had paid tribute or rent? Did it begin in Zhou-era or Warring States period China when deliberate devegetation campaigns, large forest-clearing projects, and flood-prevention dam infrastructure installation led to local extinction of tiger, rhinos, and elephants? Rome? The Columbian Exchange, institutionalized slavery, and plantations in seventeenth-century European colonies in the Americas?

Is an Isconahua community in Amazonia’s forests equally as responsible for global ecological change as a multi-billion-dollar American mining corporation?

This is an example of what might be the most common criticism of the term: The Anthropocene term, by invoking “anthropos,” is imprecise because rather than identifying the actual source of global ecological change (certain systems, institutions, and practices) it implies that blame be ascribed to humans-as-a-species for provoking this global ecological apocalypse. This criticism (”Anthropocene obscures responsibility”) is just one of many.

These are probably my major issues with Anthropocene: (1) According to Indigenous scholars and many writers from the Global South and especially Latin America, the name obscures responsibility and doesn’t adequately imply which human systems and institutions are responsible for global ecological catastrophe, erasing and obscuring the ongoing violence which those same institutions continue to enact, both upon ecosystems and human lives. (2) And given geologists’ common focus on fossil fuels as the key indicators of Anthropocene start-date and human influence on environment, I think that this distracts from the arguably more influential and more important role of agriculture (and associated devegetation for purposes of settlement, rangeland, etc.) as perhaps the more dramatic human influence on global ecological history. Fossil fuels didn’t kill the bison and change the entirety of the Great Plains from boreal climates to the subtropics. Empires seeking resource extraction, accomplished through violence and dispossession, killed the bison and changed the continent. (3) The concept is the result of Euro-American academic discourse and does not adequately incorporate Indigenous and non-Western criticisms. And while paying superficial lip-service to “decolonization, the same academic departments maintain relationships with (neo)colonial nonprofits and government agencies while the discourse also simultaneously engages in continued appropriation of Indigenous concepts. (4) Finally, if we agree that industrial-scale resource extraction (including agriculture) and its associated social institutions are (or at least were, for most of the past) the major human influence on altering ecology, then assigning a specific start-date is extremely difficult and probably just an exercise or thought experiment, because at what point in history did these extractivist cosmologies reach “critical mass” and become the leading worldview through which (some) humans disproportionately exercised so much power over altering landscapes?

—–

I’ll recycle something I’ve previously said:

“Did the Anthropocene begin in 1821, or 1822? Did the year 1821 mark the definitive shift into a global expansion of urbanization and monoculture plantation crops, or was it the year 1822?” These are, to some degree, technicalities. This is not, or should not, be the point of “Anthropocene.” I mean, it is often important to know some specific dates; like the specific date that Russian settlers first encountered Steller’s sea cow; the specific date that English authorities issued permits for corporate monopolies on guano trade in Peru; the specific date that deliberate fire-setting dispossessed Indigenous people in Borneo and signaled arrival of palm oil plantations; the specific dates that certain agricultural, colonial, and imperial institutions invaded, expanded, or consolidated their power. But “the single date when imperial cosmologies achieved critical mass as the dominant ecological force”? I think that’s more ambiguous.

I appreciate that some popular venues or forums like academia, occasionally, are at least attempting to openly discuss a 12,000-year-old trend towards imperial power consolidation which relies on social hierarchy, disconnecting communities from local native species and landscapes, Indigenous dispossession, and the commodification of ecological systems. Glad it’s being discussed. But the discourse has issues and I think we can do better than “Anthropocene” as a term. Even if we treat Anthropocene more like an informal thought experiment, and improve it by renaming it “Plantationocene” or something, I still don’t think formally defining a specific date or “Day 1 of the Anthropocene” is as important as clearly identifying which systems and institutions actually provoked centuries of dramatic ecological change and the current ecological collapse. I think that identifying a technical start-date for a geological epoch is comparably a distraction from the discussion of ecological degradation and extinction; a distraction from the concept’s implied-but-inadequate criticism of imperial cosmologies; and a distraction from how global ecological collapse and crisis is closely related to and deeply intertwined with social hierarchies, institutions, and violence against other humans. 

–

Thank you for the question :)

El Perú es uno de los países con mayor diversidad cultural y lingüística de la región con 55 pueblos originarios o indígenas, y 47 lenguas originarias que son habladas por más de cuatro millones de personas en costa, sierra y selva. Así lo señaló Elena Burga Cabrera, directora de Educación Básica Alternativa, Intercultural Bilingüe y de Servicios Educativos en el Ámbito Rural del Ministerio de Educación (Minedu), al anunciar las actividades por el Día de las Lenguas Originarias del Perú que se celebra el 27 de mayo. “Al mantenerse viva una lengua se mantiene viva una cultura, un pensamiento distinto, una versión propia del mundo y una nueva forma de contribuir al conocimiento humano”, sostuvo Burga. “Los padres deben saber que los niños que hablan dos o más lenguas tienen mayores ventajas para el aprendizaje y mayor comprensión de su entorno social y emocional. Además, es necesario erradicar prejuicios que discriminan por hablar una lengua distinta al castellano”, agregó. Precisamente, la política nacional de educación intercultural bilingüe promueve el reconocimiento y valoración de esta diversidad en todas las escuelas del país, sean de ámbitos urbanos, rurales o donde confluyan hablantes de lenguas originarias. Asimismo, el Minedu implementa esa política en más de 24 mil instituciones educativas para escolares que pertenecen a un pueblo indígena y hablan una lengua originaria, sea como primera lengua o como lengua de herencia. En la actualidad se cuenta con materiales educativos elaborados en 24 lenguas originarias, como cuadernos de trabajo en Comunicación, Matemática y Personal Social-Ciencia y Ambiente para todos los grados de inicial y primaria, diccionarios, gramáticas, guías de alfabetos, entre otros. Las lenguas con alfabetos oficiales son el quechua, matsigenka, harakbut, ese eja, shipibo, ashaninka, aimara, yine, kakataibo, kandozi-chapra, awajún, jaqaru, shawi, yanesha, nomatsigenga, cashinahua, wampis, sharanahua, secoya, achuar, murui-muinani, kakinte, matsés, ikitu, shiwilu, madija, kukama kukamiria, maijiki, bora, yagua, kapanawa, urarina, amahuaca, yaminahua, ocaina, nanti, arabela y ticuna. Además, los especialistas del Minedu han iniciado el proceso de normalización de los alfabetos del nahua y nanti y se encuentran en proceso de diagnóstico de las lenguas isconahua, muniche, iñapari, taushiro, chamicuro, resígaro y omagua. Con el lema “Háblale a tu hijo en tu lengua originaria”, el Minedu invita a los padres de familia a participar en las actividades por el Día de las Lenguas Originarias del Perú que se realizarán este viernes 26 de mayo en los distritos de Puente Piedra y San Juan de Miraflores. En la plaza de armas de ambos distritos habrá una feria informativa sobre la diversidad cultural y lingüística, además de exhibición de materiales en lenguas originarias, microtalleres y varios números artísticos (MINEDU)