AHC/WI: Latin American independence movements led by Indios, not criollos

Is this possible? What would this new Latin America look like?
Heavily focused on land/privilege redistribution and native identity/cultural empowerment. Think somewhere on the spectrum between Mugabe and Mandela? Mugabe-type polices are more viable in a 19th century agricultural/resource economy then they are in the modern technologically sophisticated era.
 
Then you'd have far, far, weaker independence movements.

The mestizos running the independence movement seems much more likely to me, considering that they made up a much larger amount of the population. If the Latin American revolutions weren't in part caused by backlash against the dithering nature of Spain during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, you'd have later and more revolutionary independence movements. I think these would also have less support from the criollos - not quite what you want, but this could match your requirements somewhat without significantly altering Spanish colonization.
 
Less support if you only have the native groups, as not all of them would be very supportive of each other. Having the criollos onside makes sure there is less chance of s civil war, so everyone can focus on Peninsulares and Bourbon loyalists. After which things break up like IOTL. If the Indoes suceed the borders will be a lot less clean than those form the breakup of the empire. And how much racial and cultural mingling is allowed for this? Are Africans, Europeans, and others who have become somewhat mixed generations back allowed for this scenario?
 
You need to preserve distinct indigenous elites, given that the liberation wars were driven by criollo elite demands for greater autonomy and power within the empire (similarly to the American Revolution) rather than any true drive for a broad liberal democracy. In most of Latin America, this is very difficult. However, I could see a surviving Inca elite falling under Spanish rule, with Andean indigenous languages widely spoken among the elite as well as Spanish. If Madrid suddenly ceased to have significant authority, I could see indigenous elites aiming to seize power and restore an independent monarchy updated with European governmental technologies.
 
But only where very large and organized Indio populations were around, I think. This limits it to Peru and southern Mexico/upper Central America.

Indeed. This would effectively restrain independence to the Maya, Inca, and Aymara peoples.
 
You need to preserve distinct indigenous elites, given that the liberation wars were driven by criollo elite demands for greater autonomy and power within the empire (similarly to the American Revolution) rather than any true drive for a broad liberal democracy. In most of Latin America, this is very difficult. However, I could see a surviving Inca elite falling under Spanish rule, with Andean indigenous languages widely spoken among the elite as well as Spanish. If Madrid suddenly ceased to have significant authority, I could see indigenous elites aiming to seize power and restore an independent monarchy updated with European governmental technologies.

This is OTL. The Inca nobility was of course, subordinated to the Spanish authorities, but it had a position of great prestige in the Viceroyaltly of Peru, with prominent Inca families holding much influence; they even had coats of arms and were included in paintings and ceremonies with important figures of the viceroyalty, together with Spanish nobles. In fact, most administration outside the cities was still conducted by 'Indian' authorities; native curacas or chiefs administrated many native comunities (and indigenous languages are still widely spoken today) that trasitioned mostly untouched from the old Inca Empire to the viceroyalty. As far as the Independence Wars, Manuel Belgrano in Argentina proposed crowning a descendant of the 'casta del chocolate', as they were called, as king of the United Provinces of La Plata, to legitimize it with foreign powers and the native Indian population (of course he was rejected).

In fact, a large reason of why the Incas and many other 'Indians' did not support the Independence Wars is that they feared the loss of their priviliges under the Spanish. There were many exceptions though. They were still subordinate to the Europeans, and as Tupac Amaru demostrated, they would have broken free if they could.

I am not as informed, but I think it was the same case with Aztec and other elites in Mexico. The other colonies like current Argentina had lower Indian populations without established elites. Paraguay is a case of its own.

I have some sources in Spanish about the perspectives of the Inca elite during the Tupac Amaru rebellion.

This ended poorly no?

Yes, but it is proof that Indian populations were organized, large and had the will to lead a rebellion, and success, while unlikely, is not out of the question.
 
As Thanksforallthefish said, the key is somethibg like a Tupac Amaru's rebellion. If such rebellion is dellayed, or happens at a time Spain is in deep trouble, AND the Indian rebells can ally themselves with a foreign power such as Portugal or Great Britain, there are greater chances of success (not great chances, but greater than IOTL).

In OTL, The meassures taken by the Spaniards after the failure of Tupac Amaru's rebellion weakened the "Incan" elites. Something similar happen with the "Aztec" elite after a (much weaker) failed rebellion around 1800. If such movements are delayed, Indios elites could played a greater roll in our independence wars. IOTL they hadn't as much power as they had had before those rebellions.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. This would effectively restrain independence to the Maya, Inca, and Aymara peoples.

Yes, but those were some of the richest and most populous regions of Spanish colonial America. A state that controled OTL Southern Peru and Western Bolivia (and maybe even bits of OTL Northern Chile and Argentina) would have rich mines, a hard working population, a common identity and a bigger territory than many of OTL Latin American countries.
 
Yes, but those were some of the richest and most populous regions of Spanish colonial America. A state that controled OTL Southern Peru and Western Bolivia (and maybe even bits of OTL Northern Chile and Argentina) would have rich mines, a hard working population, a common identity and a bigger territory than many of OTL Latin American countries.

I think such a state would have a hard time not getting isolated by the major powers, though. Just look at what happened with Haiti. The world powers would not easily accept and support a nation that upset the racial hierarchy of the time.
 
Top