{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027953586497890294, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016877637130801686, 'mean_word_length': 5.3023255813953485, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Forgotten Territorialities: The Materiality of Indigenous Pasts

The research produced on colonial Latin America in the last two decades by scholars trained in language and literature departments shows dramatic differences in comparison to what was previously produced in the field. Since the early 1980s, these scholars have been building, slowly but effectively, a corpus of works that shows a higher degree of awareness of the complexity of colonial situations.1 These changes were acknowledged by Rolena Adorno in a 1988 article, where she describes what she first calls a paradigm shift— cambio de paradigma (11)— and later an “emergence of certain new practices and priorities”—aparición de ciertas prioridades y prácticas nuevas (12). That shift consists mainly of two theoretical moves: first, a change of focus from literature to discourse; second, a growing concern for the problematic of the Other (11). This means that practitioners in the field of colonial Latin American literature stopped worrying about the celebration of the literary value of texts and focused, instead, on the diversity of discourses that characterize a colonial situation (14). Such a shift of focus is related to the theoretical move proposed by Walter Mignolo (e.g., 1992, 810; 1991), that consists of distinguishing between a canon and a corpus-oriented research. ForMignolo (1989a), a study of the totality of texts (be they written in European alphabetic systems or not) produced under colonial situations is mandatory if one wants to account for, and understand properly, a colonial situation. In his opinion, one should talk about colonial semiosis (the totality of symbolic messages and exchanges in colonial situations) instead of colonial discourse—an expression that limits the corpus to verbal messages, whether oral or written. One of the consequences of the move he proposed was the incorporation