Fragmentary Consciousness

In chapter one, Alexander Dawson makes a note that much of Latin American history is constructed by narratives in order to create a unifier among a vast variety of histories and regions. This single identity he speaks of is used today to gain popularity to rise to presidency, in creating alliances between nations, and to join forces against imperial powers. I liked how he mentioned that there are two types of narratives. The broad, overreaching narrative that spans across large chunks of time and space and refers to concepts such as capitalism and colonialism. The other type is particular narratives. These narratives isolate a single point in time and look at its particularities. Both types of narratives are problematic. The former generalizes and decontextualizes.  The latter makes history seem rigid and precise, instead of fluid and changing before, during, and after the range of dates chosen. Dawson refers to these split visions as fragmentary history. He explains that his goal for the textbook is give multiple narratives instead of a single one. I think that it is very important to look at history in this light. There is no one side to a person, no one side to a place, and no one side to a country or a point of time. The first example he uses is that of the neighborhood Polanco and its neighbor Ecatepec in Mexico City. Polanco is a wealthy neighborhood, in contrast Ecatepec which is a poor slum. Both live next to each other, two different realities in the same geographic region, both considered Latin American, and both of them claim the same historic heroes. Their consciousness of this situation is actively being suppressed and summoned when convenient resulting in a fragmentary consciousness. I'm wondering how fragmentary history plays a part in this split consciousness and how it effects the individual's psyche.  

In my experience, the fragmentary history results in conscious and unconscious blindness. My uncle in Córdoba, Argentina lives in a "country" (gated community). Right beside this community is a villa miseria (slum). The two polar opposite worlds living right beside each other. Each one ignoring the other for decades. However, over the past few years, I've noticed tensions have risen due to resentment and economic depression. The two sides are willingly bringing the presence of each other at the front of their consciousness. The violence has risen and so has the conversation. During my visit this summer, I learned that in the 1600s there was a large population of blacks in the city. Many of the buildings that still stand today were built by blacks and indigenous peoples. Today both populations have been utterly displaced from the city. While speaking with my relatives I learned that no one knew about this! However, the most ubiquitous term used to refer to the poor, uneducated people of the city is "negro" (black). This piece of history had been completely erased from the consciousness of the people and the history of the city. Yet, it is still unconsciously present today in the language used. I believe that this duality might be a result of the fragmentary history Dawson speaks of. Thoughts?