Compare Vicuna’s lines:

“both from south america
one of them
is a contemporary myth
one that accounts for the origin of
people
who write
and people
who sing
 

and in this myth
the gods have created
the indigenous people of south america and
they have created them with great memory so
only through sound
they can remember the history
of the whole
people
 

so
instead
the gods created some people
who have no memory so because they have not
this gift of memory
they were created with a little notebook in their hands
 

and these people are the europeans”

With Plato’s Phaedrus (wherein Socrates recounts for us a “myth” from Egypt):

“At the Egyptian city of Naucratis, there was a famous old god, whose name was Theuth; the bird which is called the Ibis is sacred to him, and he was the inventor of many arts, such as arithmetic and calculation and geometry and astronomy and draughts and dice, but his great discovery was the use of letters. Now in those days the god Thamus was the king of the whole country of Egypt; and he dwelt in that great city of Upper Egypt which the Hellenes call Egyptian Thebes, and the god himself is called by them Ammon. To him came Theuth and showed his inventions, desiring that the other Egyptians might be allowed to have the benefit of them; he enumerated them, and Thamus enquired about their several uses, and praised some of them and censured others, as he approved or disapproved of them. It would take a long time to repeat all that Thamus said to Theuth in praise or blame of the various arts. But when they came to letters, This, said Theuth, will make the Egyptians wiser and give them better memories; it is a specific both for the memory and for the wit. Thamus replied: O most ingenious Theuth, the parent or inventor of an art is not always the best judge of the utility or inutility of his own inventions to the users of them. And in this instance, you who are the father of letters, from a paternal love of your own children have been led to attribute to them a quality which they cannot have; for this discovery of yours will create forgetfulness in the learners’ souls, because they will not use their memories; they will trust to the external written characters and not remember of themselves. The specific which you have discovered is an aid not to memory, but to reminiscence, and you give your disciples not truth, but only the semblance of truth; they will be hearers of many things and will have learned nothing; they will appear to be omniscient and will generally know nothing; they will be tiresome company, having the show of wisdom without the reality.”

These “myths” share a comparison of orality and script that finds the print detrimental to the exercising of memory despite the promises of writing as aid to remembrance.  In both accounts, writing works against memory as the print culture no longer needs to remember as it relies on the recorded texts, but these tend to be erased in the sense that they are covered over or deluged by the ever new printing of subsequent texts so that they are lost sight of within the seas of literacy (think Borges’ library of Babel or the unfathomable depths of millions of voices screaming simultaneously within the web with no one aware of their existences).  The new news of today eclipses the facts of yesterday and every other day prior, and the weakened memory of literate society forgets it as soon as it is no longer before one’s nose. The memory of the oral societies are not merely capable of remembering their grand narratives and consequently retaining their cultural identities and norms throughout time, but they empower their members with the capacity of retaining personal and familial and communal histories as well (something like the Garcia Marquez’s 100 Years of Solitude- though it is a novelistic representation of this oral culture’s phenomenon).

Thus the technology of print (and its descendents web, computer, tv, etc) consumes the native peoples like the BPIII’schtako of the second myth…it is the HUM of computers and flat screens and ebooks that consume the orality of the native culture, the HUM of the machine replacing the noise/sound of the once oral retellings of cultural memory, digesting and incorporating the native into the western or european mindset thereby creating the cities of mestizos or mixed peoples native-european, native biologically, european culturally, adopting the path of print, a culture of the lost and forgetful.  Their native culture is consumed and the mixed mestizo by product is excreted by the BPIII’schtako.  The two myths are one in fact.  A before and after.