This essay is a response to this forum's other two essays, which are by Taymiya R. Zaman and Manan Ahmed Asif. In it, I share in the excitement presently generated in the field of history by the effort to make South-South connections and yet also warn of the inherent limitations of such efforts. Subaltern studies famously failed to take hold among Latin Americanists, largely because the colonial context there was so profoundly different than in South Asia that it failed to illuminate history in the same ways. I assert that what Zaman and Asif attempt to do in their essays differs significantly from what subaltern studies scholars have done because they visit Latin America, literally and figuratively, in order to foster new lines of thinking in their writings about Asia. In response, I begin by considering what forays into Asia would likely do for the study of Mexico. Then, to test the forum contributors' modern assumptions about the usefulness of such efforts, I consider what Chimalpahin, the greatest of the colonial Nahua historians, revealed about his own interest in using the notion of Asia to think with.

中文翻译：

---

3. 拉丁美洲的回应：当代学者和 17 世纪土著历史学家奇马帕因的思想

这篇文章是对本论坛另外两篇文章的回应，这两篇文章分别是 Taymiya R. Zaman 和 Manan Ahmed Asif。在其中，我分享了目前在历史领域因努力建立南南联系而产生的兴奋，但也警告了这种努力的内在局限性。众所周知，底层研究未能在拉丁美洲学者中站稳脚跟，这主要是因为那里的殖民背景与南亚截然不同，未能以同样的方式阐明历史。我断言，扎曼和阿西夫在他们的论文中试图做的与底层研究学者所做的有很大不同，因为他们访问拉丁美洲，从字面上和比喻上，以在他们关于亚洲的着作中培养新的思路。作为回应，我首先考虑进军亚洲可能会对墨西哥的研究产生什么影响。然后，为了检验论坛贡献者关于这些努力的有用性的现代假设，我考虑了最伟大的殖民纳瓦历史学家 Chimalpahin 所揭示的他自己对使用亚洲概念进行思考的兴趣。