I agree with your idea, but the way you are your proposing it would mean a still worst internal colonialism after the independences. I still think the cultural hetereogenity of Ibero-America was one of the several problems to create a functional liberal nation-state, not by reason of race, of course, but by reason of motivations. Most of the indigineus peoples on the continent had systems of "colective" property of the land, leaving aside circular conceptions of time, not monetarized or lesser monetarized economies etc. Furthermore, the ad hoc created national identities where to them more foreing than the previous alliegance to spanish king. Also, the excludent approach in the construction of the new states and nations didn't help. Not recognizing the previous differences simply perpetuated them. Of course, the situation was different dependening on the countries, but some of them have even overwhelming indigenous majorities. Thus, the inflexibility of the liberal model (in my oponion the essence of the problem was not so different to the current problems in Europe integrating non-western minorities) and the lack of motivation by the part of the indigenous peoples to adopt the western model (why should them?). Some people since the independnce, including some of the libertadores, have suggested that those "savages" weren't able to understand and appreciate the benefits of liberal capitalism. Of course, there are positive data to dismiss that racist assumptiom. They understood it, and probably they didn't like it. Thus we should take into account as possibility that there are people in the world who doesn't get automatically admired by our wonderful system and prefer their way of life (it's a general reflexion, not aimed to you Abdul). The arrival of positivist ideals en the last third of the XIXth century was a catastrophe to the those indigenous peoples which were more or less still free of western impositions, we could call it the second conquest. Nevertheless abominable practices like the gamonalismo predate it. In fact, similar ideas were in the air since the late colonial period at the auspices of the Enlightenment and the bourbonic reforms. There was, for example, an obsession to put shoes and shirts to the indians which would be funny if it wouldn't hide a cultural genocide.
So the way you are wording your propossal, I only see the pressure over the indigenous peoples stressed even more than in OTL. Maybe that's the way to development, but I'm not sure if it's morally the better option.
That said, in my opinon the main "problem" was not in the indigenous peoples but, precissely, in the white elite, and that links with the next quote
The spanish empire didn't let the better situation to create those large states, for the reasons you say about colonial powers. Although the XVIIIth century reforms did it a bit better, there were almost a total lack of economical integration in the spanish vicerroyalties, let appart between viceroyalties, and the political integration was rather laxe and there were almost not traces of economies of scale only worsened by the political fragmentation so, before and after the independence the only way to keep competitiveness was the political, social and economical compulsion, specially with the surge of new raw materials productors in the XIXth century. Furthermore, some of the elements of that famished integration were destroyed at the time of the independences. The fall of the commerce of the cochineal (?) in Central America and the decline of the Potosí in the south Andeans meant the end of the economical interactions in these regions. Also, the end of the inter-colonial fiscal transactions with the fall of the empire and the political fragmentation didn't help. There is also an interesting point. When the american rebels talked about autonomy, where all them thinking in the same thing? Because it seems that while, for example, Caracas thought in one thing, Maracaibo or Valencia thought in another thing which included autonomy respect Caracas and later the same to Caracas respect Bogotá. That's also true for the other vicerroyalties and the argentineans in the board may correct me. Since the independences, there is a constant struggle between the central power of the new states (often in the exportation port) and the other cities, with different outcomes. In Mexico, better or worse, they managed to make some kind of tacit deal after the fall of Iturbide, weakening the central power (confederal constitution), although with the lost of Central America (a peripherial region, after all). Nueva Granada (Gran Colombia) was exactly the counter-example to Mexico. Also, in my opinion, there is no way to Chile forming part of any superstate. They were almost an island (the desert in the north, the andeans in the east and the ocean in the west) with a relativelly small territory (thus, not regionalized) at the time and with homogenous populations (the mapuche lived ionly south of the Bio-Bio river) working in their own way. Had Santa Cruz managed to make El Callao the main port in southern Pacific over Valparaíso and maybe Chile would have a different history, but we need a masive POD to get it, specially to make successful the Perú-Bolivia confederation, I think. The point is that, before the independence, the only factor of union was the crown, and after the independence the new republican states often didn't managed to occupe that place and the local elites didn't have reasons to give up quota of power to the state or to other social groups (like a new bourgeoisie, for example). They rebelled against the king (when they rebelled, but that's another story) to get autonomy, specially since those capetians in Madrid and their officers in the vicerroyal capitals had worrying centralist trends. Of course the thing is a lot more complex, with changing allegiances, reactions, in different ways, to the political turmoil in metropolitan Spain, rivalries among local groups of power and struggles for the fiscal resources, fear to the social revolution, fear to the ruling elite by the part of the lower groups...
And finally three random thoughts:
-On the other hand, I find some judgements about Latin America a bit contaminated by arrogance. Some people here seems to think that Latin America is the bottom of the world or something like that, and although the argentineans and chileans say they are in el culo del mundo, there are other reasons to think about. Of course, the typical image of the continent in the european and american (I'm not sure about the later) media are the hacienda, the poverty and Juan Valdés with the donkey, and that doesn't help to have perspective. But after all,although all the problems mentioned in this thread, Latin America has been since the independence the "middle-class" in the world stage and they have done notably better than many other post-colonial spaces in other parts of the world.
- Generalizations in a such heterogeneous and big area as Latin America, with different physical and structural realities, are a problem. That includes myself.
- Peruvian cuisine is one of the best in the world and probably the more underrated. Anyway I have psychological/cultural problems to enjoy the cuy, but I'm working on it. I could live happily eating only jalea de pescado.
Cheers.
Last edited:
