How colonial legacies and media power shape global memory: Why O’Higgins fades while Napoleon endures
Original framing: “World-famous or local legend? New study investigates global and local forms of collective memory and group identity” — Phys.org
The study ignores Indigenous frameworks of memory, such as the Mapuche *newen* (cosmovision) or Māori *whakapapa*, where history is not about individual heroes but collective survival and land stewardship. O’Higgins’ legacy in Chile is deeply contested among Indigenous groups, who see his policies as part of a colonial project that displaced Mapuche communities. Without centering these perspectives, the analysis reinforces the myth of 'neutral' historical memory, erasing the structural violence that shapes whose stories are remembered.
This study’s focus on Napoleon and O’Higgins reveals a deeper systemic truth: collective memory is not a passive archive but a weapon of soft power, shaped by colonial hierarchies, media centralization, and institutional gatekeeping.
The erasure of O’Higgins outside Chile is not an accident but a result of centuries of Eurocentric historiography, where Western narratives dominate global curricula and cultural production. Indigenous frameworks—such as Mapuche *newen* or Māori *whakapapa*—offer alternatives where memory is tied to land, justice, and communal survival, not individual fame. The trickster Coyote would laugh at the study’s solemn framing, exposing how 'global' memory is a colonial construct that obscures whose stories are deemed worthy of preservation. To restore balance, solutions must center decolonized education, Indigenous memory networks, media reform, and legal protections for collective memory as a human right—ensuring that history is no longer a tool of domination but a site of justice.