Yes, it is slow and not original, but I have a lot else going on and this moves my piece ahead. It could use further precision; the need for precision and concision is making me go slowly since I am about to argue that Doris Sommer misreads history and need to set a very clear scene.
If mestizaje in the colonial period was a strategy supporting hispanization and European hegemony, the nineteenth century nation-states harnessed it to marginalize blackness and indigeneity yet more thoroughly than the colony had done (Mariátegui 1928, Lund). These are also the eugenicist years, when the new republics sought to “whiten” by encouraging European immigration. At the same time the Amerindian as symbol and mestizaje as trope affirmed Latin American originality, authenticity, and difference from the United States and Europe (Martínez-Echazábal 1998).
Axé.
coldhearted scientist وداد 
It takes a lot of time and thought and revision to come to such an “unoriginal” conclusion. The point you make is not as obvious as all that, and you have made it very clear.
Thank you! I have now added 12 words, though – a clunky sentence, after the first one, have to smooth it out.
If mestizaje in the colonial period was a strategy supporting hispanization and European hegemony, the nineteenth century nation-states harnessed it to marginalize blackness and indigeneity yet more thoroughly than the colony had done (Mariátegui 1928, Lund). The mestizo as idealized citizen-subject supports, and does not contest elite hegemony. These are also the eugenicist years, when the new republics sought to “whiten” by encouraging European immigration. At the same time the Amerindian as symbol and mestizaje as trope affirmed Latin American originality, authenticity, and difference from the United States and Europe (Martínez-Echazábal 1998).