Pedro ‘Ramayá’ Beltrán, widely known as the “King of Millo,” has died in Colombia at the age of 96, according to opposition-aligned cultural and regional outlets, with government-aligned coverage broadly matching these core facts on his identity and passing. Both sides agree he was a central figure in Colombian Caribbean folk music, especially cumbia, and that his virtuosity with the flauta de millo and the gaita corta made him a national reference point. They concur that he served as Momo King of the Barranquilla Carnival in 2002 and that his music is deeply embedded in carnival celebrations, with a repertoire of hundreds of compositions that form part of Colombia’s living musical canon.
Coverage from both opposition and government-aligned outlets presents Beltrán as a guardian of tradition whose work bridged oral, rural musical practices and more formal cultural institutions. They emphasize his role in modernizing and disseminating traditional cumbia by incorporating orchestral instruments while preserving its roots, and they highlight that he received institutional recognition, notably the Ministry of Culture’s Lifetime Achievement Award in 2023, as a symbol of his national stature. Across the spectrum, his career is framed as a key chapter in the preservation and projection of Afro-Caribbean and coastal folklore, with agreement that his legacy will endure through recordings, compositions, and his influence on subsequent generations of Colombian musicians.
Framing of the state’s role. Opposition-aligned outlets tend to present Beltrán’s late institutional recognition, such as the 2023 Lifetime Achievement Award, as an overdue gesture from a state that historically neglected coastal and Afro-descendant folk musicians, while government-aligned sources portray the same honors as proof of a sustained cultural policy that values traditional artists. Opposition coverage often hints that the central government only fully embraced Beltrán once his international and carnival prestige were impossible to ignore, whereas government-aligned media emphasize continuity between cultural programs, festivals, and official awards. In this way, the same decorations are either read as partial redress for long-standing marginalization or as the culmination of a coherent national heritage strategy.
Regional versus national identity. Opposition-leaning reports underscore Beltrán’s identity as a son of the Caribbean coast and stress how local communities, carnivals, and grassroots groups kept his music alive even when national media offered limited exposure, while government-aligned coverage tends to present him foremost as a symbol of unified Colombian identity. In opposition narratives, Barranquilla Carnival and small-town festivities appear as the real custodians of his legacy, with Bogotá and central institutions arriving late; in pro-government narratives, these same carnivals are folded into a story of national cultural integration spearheaded by state-backed heritage initiatives. This leads to divergent emphasis on whether Beltrán belongs primarily to the coastal people who nurtured him or to a broader nation that later canonized him.
Use of his legacy in current politics. Opposition sources more readily connect Beltrán’s life story to ongoing debates over cultural budgets, regional inequality, and support for traditional artists, implying that his passing should spark scrutiny of how much the current and past governments actually invest in folklore. Government-aligned outlets, by contrast, tend to keep present-day political disputes at arm’s length, focusing on commemorations, official condolences, and celebratory retrospectives that place Beltrán above partisan conflict. As a result, his death becomes either a springboard for criticism of cultural policy or an opportunity to showcase state-led homage and unity.
Narrative tone and emphasis. Opposition coverage often mixes celebration with a subtle sense of grievance, stressing the struggle of folk musicians to gain recognition and mentioning how, despite his titles and honors, Beltrán exemplified a broader pattern of underappreciated regional culture, while government-aligned media favor a more triumphant tone that foregrounds medals, titles, and official tributes. The former give extended space to fellow musicians, community voices, and carnival organizers who portray him as one of their own, whereas the latter are more likely to highlight statements from ministries, cultural institutes, and national figures. Thus, the same biographical facts are arranged either into a story of hard-won recognition from the margins or a story of seamless institutional celebration of a cultural icon.
In summary, opposition coverage tends to use Beltrán’s death to question how fully and how early the state and national media valued coastal folklore, while government-aligned coverage tends to emphasize official tributes and policies that frame him as a long-recognized pillar of Colombia’s cultural heritage.
