Parting Words from the Street

Our trip would not be complete without including some perspective from the locals! The word on the street literally came from the various taxi drivers we encountered during our time in Lima. One of the topics we chose to explore was the local opinion of “Peru’s progress.” Our first driver made the profound comment that we need to consider what is meant by “progress.” In his eyes, yes, Peru has succeeded in increasing foreign investment, so in that sense, a booming economy has helped elevate Peru’s level of progress. But, in his eyes, if we looked around at the Peruvian people, there are still very poor children who are hungry, without education, impoverished living alongside this economic boom. Peru, therefore, cannot be seen as progressing when it clearly lacks social equality, local development and distribution of basic human rights.

This theme of “quasi-progress” rang true with the second driver we encountered. His comments centered around President Humala’s administration, which campaigned around this notion of change and social justice. The locals believe that their president does not want to rock the boat and make sweeping changes that address this “development” dichotomy and lack of resource distribution. According to our driver, Humala had the right idea (perhaps for the right votes) but the everyday citizens feel one reason for the lack of action could be that reforms to help the poor are challenging, redistributing resources is a tall order and, thus far, the locals don’t believe such sweeping change will be coming any time soon under this administration.

The last driver was eager to point out the various touristic attractions and different neighborhoods while we were en route to the Plaza de Armas at Lima’s city center. Seemingly interested in interacting with his customers, he willingly shared with us that Lima (and Peru generally) has seen an influx of visitors, mainly Western tourists who come to spend a lot of money to visit such historic, cultural sites like Cuzco and Machu Picchu. He remarked, however, that the very people of Peru, those communities right next door to such internationally renowned sites, cannot even visit Machu Picchu because it is just so very expensive for the Peruvians. He was adamant about explaining how Peruvians themselves do not visit these sites, he never has and didn’t allude to any plans to in the near future. He ended by saying it is a shame to be unable to visit places so important to one’s past, one’s history and culture.

These comments all seemed to feed into one another, and echo the main tenets of this course. Susana Baca and others stressed the lack of cultural identity, awareness or understanding by the Peruvian people (including the Peruvian government). Having the opportunity to visit culturally rich sites and learn first-hand about the past might help unite a modern civilization in its path forward. And yet, without such opportunities, without a united appreciation for Peru’s diverse roots and the turbulent past that shapes the hopes and fears of today, how can citizens take active participation to challenge (or work to strengthen) the institutions that are not doing more to serve collective development of the nation? As we heard from our various speakers, the opportunities for change in Peru lie in the hands of the people. Peruvians are faced with the challenge to unite and define a Peruvian citizenship that learns from the past and formulates creative responses to the institutional inefficiencies they face today. Such strategies for success could only be strengthened by continuous exchange – like this study abroad course – where visitors can take away a better understanding of the social, cultural and natural landscape of Peru and hopefully do our part to strengthen the image of Peru and its host of possibilities.