Skip to main content


<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">




<title>The aftermath of political nationalism in early 19th century Latin America</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>


<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any


<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>




<recording dur="00:46:33" n="7630">


<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>



<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

<language id="es">Spanish</language>



<person id="nf0052" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="f"><p>nf0052, main speaker, non-student, female</p></person>

<person id="sf0053" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf0053, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm0054" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0054, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="sm0055" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm0055, participant, student, male</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="6"><p>number of speakers: 6</p></personGrp>





<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Comparative American Studies</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ah</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">unknown</item>





<u who="nf0052"> first of all i want to check does everybody have this is really boring does everybody have the new seminar sheet <pause dur="0.2"/> for next term <pause dur="0.4"/> if there's anybody who doesn't <pause dur="0.3"/> have the new and slightly augmented seminar sheet <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.5"/> the first seminar of next term that's in week one <pause dur="0.3"/> take one <pause dur="0.2"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> if you have one <pause dur="0.2"/> don't take another one because we don't have five-hundred of them okay <pause dur="1.2"/> the other thing that goes with that is we're <pause dur="0.2"/> kindly handing out to you the <pause dur="0.7"/> one of the key texts for <pause dur="0.3"/> that seminar again does anybody not have it <pause dur="1.7"/> if you if you don't have one again <pause dur="0.2"/> take it <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> and if you do have one then don't take one okay <pause dur="1.0"/> there's that <pause dur="0.5"/> the next thing i want to hand out to you which also doesn't relate to the lecture itself <pause dur="0.7"/> is a revised list of essay topics that i gather there's been some </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> justified discontent with the <pause dur="0.3"/> division <pause dur="0.2"/> of <trunc>sec</trunc> between sections one two and three on the essays <pause dur="0.3"/> that some i gather from <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> that some of you were unhappy about <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> # the way which the divisions into the three

sections was going to be <pause dur="0.2"/> limiting your choice on writing essays <pause dur="0.6"/> so what we've done is we've redrawn the boundary <pause dur="1.7"/> between the three different sections <pause dur="0.8"/> and slightly changed the essay topics <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> the next essay and for the third essay so take one of these <pause dur="0.6"/> and pass them on <pause dur="0.5"/> if for some reason <pause dur="0.2"/> i don't think we've actually eliminated any essays i think we've just added new topics and moved them around <pause dur="0.4"/> but if somehow <event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> these changes are going to prevent you from writing an essay that you had already set your heart on then just tell me and you can do it okay <pause dur="0.3"/> this is meant to be expanding rather than limiting choice <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> and the third thing <pause dur="0.4"/> no the fourth thing what are we up to <pause dur="1.0"/> fourth <pause dur="0.3"/> i don't know how many things <pause dur="0.4"/> the next thing that i want to hand out to you actually does relate <pause dur="0.3"/> to the lecture <pause dur="0.4"/> this is <pause dur="0.5"/> the one thing that does <pause dur="0.5"/> this is <pause dur="0.5"/> a two-sided handout <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> that duplicates material that i'm going to show you on the overhead <pause dur="1.0"/> so take one of those <pause dur="0.3"/> you don't need it yet <pause dur="0.3"/> you'll know

when you need it i'll tell you when you need it <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> so are those all moving through the class <pause dur="0.7"/> are you okay <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="1.3"/> what i would like to do now is actually start <pause dur="0.9"/> the lecture i'd like to indeed <pause dur="0.4"/> begin talking about oh no God what is this thing doing it says <pause dur="2.6"/><event desc="turns off television" iterated="n"/> mm <pause dur="0.3"/> pull the plug on the video first <pause dur="0.5"/> what i would like to do is i would like to start <pause dur="0.8"/> today's lecture <pause dur="0.5"/> this is the last lecture of <pause dur="0.6"/> the section on independence <pause dur="0.6"/> but it's also the beginning of <pause dur="0.3"/> a new section on the aftermath of independence so it's a sort of overlap <pause dur="0.6"/> lecture <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.9"/> occupies this <pause dur="0.3"/> marginal ambivalent position between the end of this term and the beginning of next term <pause dur="0.3"/> just in the same way as it discusses this ambivalent period <pause dur="0.3"/> between <pause dur="0.4"/> the end of the revolutionary period when <pause dur="0.5"/> outright fighting between the advocates of independence and <pause dur="0.6"/> continued royalism <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>w</trunc> was <trunc>p</trunc> was # <pause dur="0.5"/> still going on and <pause dur="0.2"/> the period when new republics were being constructed and what i'd like to talk about is nationalism i'd like to talk about the

process <pause dur="0.4"/> of creating new nations <pause dur="0.7"/> in <pause dur="0.7"/> the newly independent <pause dur="1.0"/> Latin American republics <pause dur="1.0"/> so what we've looked at in the last couple of lectures the process through which <pause dur="0.4"/> Spanish America became independent <pause dur="0.6"/> of <pause dur="0.9"/> European rule <pause dur="0.8"/> and what i want to look at is <pause dur="0.2"/> the process of nationalism broadly <pause dur="0.8"/> or to look at it another way i want to look at the question of what changed <pause dur="1.0"/> after independence i want to ask <pause dur="0.6"/> how did human existence in Spanish America <pause dur="0.7"/> change <pause dur="0.8"/> after <pause dur="0.4"/> the process of political independence <pause dur="0.5"/> that's the broad question which i'm going to try to be answering in this lecture now this might seem like a really obvious question i mean a process <pause dur="1.2"/> by which Spanish America separated itself <pause dur="0.2"/> from <pause dur="0.7"/> European rule <pause dur="1.2"/> resulted in dramatic changes politically it resulted in Spanish America ceasing to be a Spanish colony and it implemented democratic rule <pause dur="0.4"/> and republicanism <pause dur="0.7"/> across the continent and # <pause dur="0.8"/> this might seem like an enormously large change <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> politically it undoubtedly was an enormous

change <pause dur="0.4"/> what i would like to ask though is how this affected the individuals who were living in Spanish America who were <pause dur="0.7"/> experiencing this change <pause dur="1.0"/> i think the best way to proceed <pause dur="0.6"/> in this examination is <pause dur="0.5"/> to begin by discussing the things that didn't change i think that's the thing i'd like to do first i'd like to discuss what remained <pause dur="0.7"/> basically exactly the same <pause dur="0.4"/> after independence from Spain <pause dur="0.5"/> and to do this let's let's <pause dur="0.2"/> start by <pause dur="0.5"/> supposing for a moment say that <pause dur="0.9"/> you <pause dur="0.4"/> me all of us <pause dur="0.3"/> were <pause dur="0.5"/> say were Indians who were resident in an small village in the Andes in <pause dur="0.2"/> the new republic of Ecuador say Ecuador was created <pause dur="0.4"/> in eighteen-thirty as a separate republic <pause dur="1.4"/> supposing that you lived in this this village well prior to <pause dur="0.4"/> independence and you worked perhaps on a small plot a small plot of land you were basically a farmer and you might produce <pause dur="0.4"/> a certain amount of <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> <trunc>o</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>pro</trunc> artisanal products like hats <pause dur="0.2"/> to sell at the local market <pause dur="0.5"/> and you would lead an <trunc>ex</trunc> an existence in this small

village well prior to independence <pause dur="0.4"/> your <pause dur="0.6"/> primary contacts with the state <pause dur="0.4"/> such as it was with the colonial state <pause dur="0.4"/> would have been <pause dur="0.2"/> first of all the payment of Indian tribute do you remember that i talked about Indian tribute <pause dur="0.7"/> in previous lectures <pause dur="1.4"/> tribute would have been <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the prime moments of connection <pause dur="0.6"/> one of the prime annual moments of connection <pause dur="0.3"/> with the colonial state you would have had contact with the state when you paid tribute and you would also <trunc>p</trunc> say <pause dur="0.4"/> have had contact with the state when you for example purchased alcohol from the state <pause dur="0.2"/> alcohol monopoly <pause dur="0.6"/> after <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> alcohol became <pause dur="0.8"/> a state monopoly if you wanted to buy anything at all to drink <pause dur="0.4"/> you had to get it through the state <pause dur="0.2"/> so those might those were the sorts of moments when you might actually have encountered <pause dur="0.4"/> the state other than that <pause dur="0.4"/> you might perhaps have had relatively little <pause dur="0.4"/> formal contact <pause dur="0.5"/> with <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="1.0"/> # institutions of the colonial state unless you actually wanted to or unless you ended up <pause dur="0.4"/> involved in a lawsuit or

or various other things like that you might have just gone on in some in this way having these rather limited moments of overlap with <pause dur="0.5"/> the colonial state well <pause dur="0.6"/> after independence i think these two things that i've mentioned <pause dur="0.3"/> would have remained <pause dur="0.7"/> your primary points of contact <pause dur="0.8"/> after independence <pause dur="0.5"/> # the Indian tribute was not abolished in Ecuador it it just continued the new republic <pause dur="0.3"/> simply began <pause dur="0.2"/> collecting <pause dur="0.5"/> this tax that previously had been paid to the colonial state <pause dur="0.6"/> they just stepped into the shoes of the colonial state in that regard <pause dur="0.4"/> and they also continued <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> have an ultimate to make <pause dur="0.3"/> alcohol a state monopoly <pause dur="0.4"/> for for fiscal purposes for some decades afterwards <pause dur="0.4"/> so fiscally at least in terms of government income <pause dur="1.0"/> and therefore in terms of <pause dur="0.4"/> taxation <pause dur="1.0"/> these new republics just they just slotted themselves in <pause dur="1.0"/> to <pause dur="0.6"/> the structure <pause dur="0.3"/> that the colonial state <pause dur="0.8"/> had <pause dur="0.6"/> itself established <pause dur="0.6"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> so in that regard <pause dur="0.2"/> fiscally if you look at where government revenues came from and if you look therefore

what taxes members of the public <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>n</trunc> citizens as they now were <pause dur="0.4"/> would have been paying they were actually quite similar <pause dur="1.2"/> i mean why was this this was for quite obvious reasons these new republics were in desperate <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>financial <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>straits <pause dur="0.3"/> many of them and they needed whatever source of income they they could have and so the sorts of philosophical discussions that advocates of independence had had <pause dur="0.5"/> during the war <pause dur="0.3"/> about Indian tribute which they had condemned as being a loathsome vestige of Spanish oppression <pause dur="0.8"/> which symbolized the <pause dur="0.2"/> horrendous conditions in which the Indian population had been kept by the Spanish <pause dur="0.7"/> and these discussions just sort of get brushed aside and they decide actually they don't you know they really kind of need this money <pause dur="0.3"/> and they continue to collect it they give it a new name but they they continued to collect it <pause dur="0.8"/> and so i just suggested that fiscally <pause dur="0.6"/> and that is to say in terms of government income <pause dur="0.6"/> very little changed <pause dur="0.6"/> in the first decades <pause dur="0.5"/> after

independence <pause dur="1.1"/> similarly i think one might argue that economically if one looks at the economy as a whole not just government revenue one might argue that <pause dur="0.3"/> economically <pause dur="0.3"/> not that much changed <pause dur="0.6"/> from the colonial period <pause dur="0.7"/> for example <pause dur="1.0"/> prior to independence <pause dur="0.6"/> the viceroyalty of New Granada what did did anybody know for extra points what New Granada became <pause dur="0.6"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> what state did it become after independence </u><pause dur="2.0"/> <u who="sf0053" trans="pause"> Gran Colombia <pause dur="0.3"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nf0052" trans="overlap"> yeah it became Gran Colombia <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.4"/> eventually fragmented into what's now <pause dur="0.2"/> Colombia <pause dur="0.8"/> and then Venezuela and Ecuador which as i said in eighteen-thirty <pause dur="0.3"/> split off <pause dur="0.8"/> so the viceroyalty of New Granada <pause dur="0.5"/> had <pause dur="0.4"/> depended <pause dur="0.3"/> primarily on the export of gold for example that had been its <trunc>p</trunc> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> primary source of importance for the Spanish crown <pause dur="0.3"/> that had been its biggest export <pause dur="0.2"/> to Europe <pause dur="0.6"/> and after independence not surprisingly gold continued to be <pause dur="0.7"/> Colombia's <pause dur="0.4"/> as it became <pause dur="0.4"/> primary export the economic structure of the country wasn't revolutionized <pause dur="0.2"/> by independence <pause dur="0.4"/> #

Ecuador for example continued to export hats as they had done <pause dur="1.1"/> that's where the Panama hat comes from did i tell you this before <pause dur="1.7"/> the the Panama hat comes from Ecuador isn't that a <pause dur="0.6"/> a useful fact <pause dur="1.1"/> to know and they continued to export hats they were a major hat exporter <pause dur="0.6"/> for the region <pause dur="1.0"/> so in this ways in these regions you might argue that independence didn't bring about dramatic economic changes <pause dur="0.2"/> as a whole <pause dur="0.3"/> now i don't want to suggest that <pause dur="0.3"/> total <pause dur="0.7"/> # stagnation if that's the right word or or total continuity <pause dur="0.4"/> characterized the entirety of the post-independence <pause dur="0.4"/> experience across Spanish America as a whole in many places i think it did for the first fifty years there were some exceptions <pause dur="0.4"/> in some regions <pause dur="0.6"/> the new republican governments made substantial efforts to try to change the structure of the economy <pause dur="0.3"/> Mexico i think is the strongest example of this in the eighteen-thirties <pause dur="0.8"/> the government of Mexico there were a series succession of governments <pause dur="0.4"/> who <pause dur="1.0"/>

deliberately attempted to <pause dur="0.4"/> foment and support <pause dur="0.2"/> domestic industry cloth making for example was explicitly being encouraged <pause dur="0.7"/> by the governments of the nineteen of the eighteen-thirties <pause dur="0.3"/> in Mexico because they wanted to try to protect the republic from <pause dur="0.4"/> the flood of primarily British <pause dur="0.4"/> imports and particularly British cloth <pause dur="0.4"/> that they felt were <pause dur="0.3"/> going were # <pause dur="0.2"/> taking over the country and were going to be preventing the development of some kind of <pause dur="0.8"/> autonomous national <pause dur="0.6"/> # industry <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="1.0"/> in Mexico you see some attempt by these new governments to actually <pause dur="0.5"/> change the way the economy is structured <pause dur="1.0"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> i think that these were <pause dur="0.2"/> exceptions these were this was not the general trend <pause dur="0.5"/> for the first fifty years or so after independence <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> what i would like to stress was this element of continuity i think as as much as the these particular moments of change after the mid-century after about eighteen-fifty <pause dur="1.3"/> if i were going to talk about <pause dur="0.8"/> continuity i would be telling a very different story

after eighteen-fifty i think the <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> structure of the economies in most Latin American countries changed dramatically but that is something for the future that is something we will look at in later lectures i think <pause dur="0.2"/> right now i want you to focus your attention on the first <pause dur="0.5"/> couple of decades after independence up until about <pause dur="1.0"/> # eighteen-<pause dur="0.6"/>fifty or so <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> here i said well i said <pause dur="0.7"/> government income didn't change that much i said the economy <pause dur="0.5"/> didn't change <pause dur="0.5"/> that much <pause dur="0.9"/> i mean indeed one might argue that even in places where it looked like things changed they didn't really and for example <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> the viceroyalty as was <pause dur="0.6"/> of the Rio de la Plata <pause dur="0.4"/> that's what became Argentina <pause dur="0.6"/> in the very south <pause dur="1.0"/> prior to independence <pause dur="0.3"/> this had been the the economy had been based on trade it was very much an entrepot for the importation of goods from Europe <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> that was a point <pause dur="0.3"/> from which goods were dispersed to other parts of Spanish America <pause dur="0.2"/> and this role this <trunc>im</trunc> the most important role <pause dur="0.5"/> in this

trade based economy <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.4"/> played by Spanish merchants <pause dur="0.6"/> in the colonial period <pause dur="0.3"/> there was a an elite of very wealthy Spanish merchants who dominated this colonial trade <pause dur="0.6"/> after independence out go the Spanish nobody wants Spanish merchants any more and the Spanish are # # generally <pause dur="0.2"/> # encouraged to leave <pause dur="0.6"/> however <pause dur="1.1"/> the basic <pause dur="0.2"/> structure of the economy which revolves around trade does not change all that happens <pause dur="0.2"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>is that <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> the role that had been played by Spanish merchants is taken over by Creoles <pause dur="0.4"/> who step into the shoes <pause dur="0.9"/> of the Spanish merchants and take over these trade networks <pause dur="0.6"/> # as John Lynch <trunc>m</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> might put it as as he <pause dur="0.4"/> # describes it in one of his books same new old new rider <pause dur="1.6"/> so <pause dur="0.9"/> we don't have enormous fiscal or economic <pause dur="0.2"/> changes <pause dur="0.9"/> what about society in what ways was everyday life different <pause dur="0.3"/> in an independent republic <pause dur="1.0"/> i've already suggested that in some ways things might not be that different the state continues to collect taxes peasants continue <pause dur="0.4"/> to work the land <pause dur="0.3"/> traders

continue to struggle for a living <pause dur="1.1"/> was then am i then suggesting that actually <pause dur="0.8"/> life in an independent nation was really just the same as in <pause dur="0.5"/> a colony <pause dur="1.0"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> what i'd like you to focus on is <pause dur="0.2"/> that phrase independent nation that's what i'd like you <pause dur="0.4"/> to think about <pause dur="0.7"/> and the <trunc>id</trunc> the <trunc>th</trunc> that phrase i think <pause dur="0.4"/> suggests <pause dur="0.5"/> one area where one might fruitfully look <pause dur="0.3"/> for changes <pause dur="0.7"/> in <pause dur="0.8"/> society and culture <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to take a step back though from Spanish America at this point and ask how many of you have studied European history of the nineteenth century at all <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah <pause dur="1.0"/> do you remember the process of nation building do you remember reading about the <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> process of nation building in Germany and Italy <pause dur="0.4"/> during this period <pause dur="0.6"/> does this ring bells <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" iterated="n" n="ss"/><kinesic desc="nod heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> yeah <pause dur="1.0"/> well <pause dur="0.5"/> i think if you recall <pause dur="0.2"/> studying those topics you surely talked about the growth of nationalism <pause dur="0.8"/> in these regions <pause dur="1.1"/> and this is what i'd like to talk about <pause dur="0.5"/> now as i suggested at the beginning of the lecture <pause dur="1.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> well we might start by saying <pause dur="0.6"/> what what is

nationalism what does nationalism mean <pause dur="0.4"/> if you look it up in a dictionary <trunc>national</trunc> the dictionary will say something helpful like nationalism is the devotion to the interests of a particular nation <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.8"/> this seems to me to beg the question of what a nation is <pause dur="1.3"/> we might indeed ask were the Spanish colonies <pause dur="0.5"/> prior to independence <pause dur="0.4"/> were these nations <pause dur="1.1"/> was <pause dur="0.9"/> the viceroyalty of New Spain I-E Mexico was that <pause dur="0.6"/> a nation <pause dur="0.6"/> actually let's take a little poll how many people know i'm not going to ask you to justify this how many people think they were <pause dur="0.3"/> nations how many thinks Mexico was a nation <pause dur="1.0"/> prior to independence <pause dur="1.4"/> absolutely nobody interesting how many thinks <pause dur="0.4"/> how many thinks how many people think <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="1.2"/> it wasn't <pause dur="1.7"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" iterated="n" n="ss"/> yeah <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah there's an overwhelming majority it seems to me in favour of <pause dur="0.4"/> wasn't <pause dur="1.1"/> that that's certainly my view <pause dur="0.3"/> but it was not the view <pause dur="0.4"/> of the advocates of independence <pause dur="0.8"/> and this is something that i will talk about <pause dur="0.3"/> in a moment <pause dur="1.5"/> this is an area where there is currently a lot of

rather interesting <pause dur="0.2"/> historical research being done this is something that i think historians right now are quite interested in this question of nationalism and where it comes from because you've all just said to me <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> unequivocally it seems to me <pause dur="0.2"/> that these places were not <pause dur="0.2"/> nations so how do they become nations how does Mexico become Mexico how does it become <pause dur="0.5"/> a nation <pause dur="1.4"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> what happens i think <pause dur="0.3"/> is that this doesn't this process doesn't occur naturally i think those of you who studied <pause dur="0.9"/> European nationalism in the nineteenth century i think would probably <pause dur="0.8"/> agree with this <pause dur="0.3"/> that nationalism is not something that springs fully formed <pause dur="0.8"/> from pre-existing nations it's something which is encouraged <pause dur="0.4"/> and developed <pause dur="1.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.4"/> created even one might say <pause dur="1.1"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> people <pause dur="0.6"/> and what i'd like us to look at is the way in which <pause dur="0.9"/> the idea of nationalism was deliberately <pause dur="0.5"/> fostered <pause dur="0.5"/> by <pause dur="0.3"/> the political leaders of these new republics in the first decades <pause dur="0.3"/> after independence <pause dur="1.2"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> how you might ask do you foment an idea of

nation and how do you create a sense <pause dur="0.5"/> of nationalism <pause dur="0.8"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> at the most basic level <pause dur="0.5"/> one of the ways in which the early politicians in the first decades after independence <pause dur="0.4"/> helped <pause dur="0.5"/> spread an idea or indeed during the period of independence itself helped spread an idea of nationalism was just by talking about the nation a lot <pause dur="0.4"/> if one looks at <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.9"/> proclamations the speeches the <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>ma</trunc> # the manifestos and the <pause dur="0.4"/> pieces of <pause dur="0.3"/> discourse produced by <pause dur="0.7"/> these early politicians one sees an incredible preponderance of the phrase nation of <distinct lang="es">la nación</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> which is <pause dur="0.9"/> just by <trunc>s</trunc> sheer numerical bulk if one counts the number of references to it is is quite striking <pause dur="0.9"/> i think this is one of and indeed they talked also about the need to create a nation <pause dur="0.5"/> and i want to take one example rather than just talking generally about Spanish America i want to look at Chile for <pause dur="0.5"/> look at the process of creating some sense of nationalism in <pause dur="0.3"/> Chile <pause dur="0.8"/> in the first couple of decades after independence so you just have a concrete

example that you can hang this stuff on <pause dur="1.0"/> there's also some very nice work done on Chile i i should <pause dur="0.5"/> in the spirit of scholarly <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> acknowledgement i should say that <pause dur="0.4"/> what i'm about to say is taken partly from the work of Simon Collier who's <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> <pause dur="0.7"/> # so this is a footnote to my lecture <pause dur="2.3"/> you know i like to <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> nod towards Simon Collier who's done this nice work on <pause dur="0.3"/> on Chilean nationalism can you see that </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm0054" trans="pause"> no </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> no <event desc="moves television" iterated="y" dur="4"/></u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sm0055" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="3.3"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> can you see it now <pause dur="0.4"/> good <pause dur="2.4"/> and he's gone through a lot of these republican proclamations and texts and he's looked at how they talk about <pause dur="0.6"/> the Chilean nation <pause dur="0.2"/> and so for example he's <pause dur="0.5"/> he notes that for example in eighteen-eleven at the very beginning of the process of independence while the war of independence was really just beginning to gear up in Chile <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> Chilean politicians asserted for example that the government ought to <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>create <pause dur="0.4"/> give existence <pause dur="0.3"/> politics and opinions <pause dur="0.5"/>

to a nation <pause dur="0.3"/> which has never had them before</reading> <pause dur="2.2"/> so there for example somebody's suggesting that actually in eighteen-eleven that there is a Chilean nation that there's a Chilean nation <pause dur="0.6"/> right there it's just never had <pause dur="0.2"/> any existence or politics <pause dur="0.5"/> or opinions <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a somewhat contradictory <pause dur="0.7"/> suggestion <pause dur="0.7"/> journalists <trunc>pro</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> proclaimed in their revolutionary <pause dur="0.3"/> periodicals we are the founders of a nation <pause dur="1.2"/> there was this <pause dur="0.5"/> constant reference to the nation as this # <pause dur="0.4"/> concrete thing <pause dur="0.5"/> that really existed <pause dur="1.2"/> there was intense celebration also in republican discourse of <pause dur="0.8"/> the <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> the motherland <pause dur="0.4"/> this is a vital term if one's going to be looking <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> at this period this is <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="es">la patria</distinct> <pause dur="3.0"/> which is an interesting word in Spanish i mean it means the motherland or the fatherland depending on how you wish to translate it <pause dur="0.5"/> what's interesting about it is <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> # in a sense would suggest fatherland <pause dur="0.4"/> it's etymologically <pause dur="0.8"/>

<trunc>etymolologico</trunc> i got lost on that word related <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> the word <distinct lang="es">padre</distinct> for father <pause dur="0.8"/> so it suggests perhaps fatherland it's also feminine <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> it's a feminine <pause dur="0.4"/> noun <pause dur="1.3"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> it somehow suggests motherland at the same time and <trunc>in</trunc> indeed people sometimes like to talk <pause dur="0.5"/> even more all inclusively not just about the <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> the the fatherland <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> but about the <pause dur="0.4"/> the <distinct lang="es">madre patria</distinct> <pause dur="2.9"/> can you read that <pause dur="0.9"/> can people read that <pause dur="0.7"/> no <pause dur="0.4"/> the <distinct lang="es">madre patria</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> which combines everything <distinct lang="es">madre</distinct> is mother <pause dur="0.2"/> so it's the mother-father land in a sense <pause dur="0.6"/> this was a phrase that was # particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> popular during this <pause dur="0.5"/> this period <pause dur="1.3"/> there was great celebration then as i said of the <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> of this new fatherland of the nation one of the heroes of independence wonderfully named Bernardo O'Higgins <pause dur="0.4"/> isn't this a great name that the <pause dur="0.3"/> one of the great heroes of Chilean independence was actually called O'Higgins <pause dur="0.3"/> this points to the tremendous <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>impre</trunc> # importance of <pause dur="0.6"/> the British <pause dur="0.7"/> and Irish <pause dur="0.5"/>

volunteers who went to fight for the republicans Bernardo O'Higgins <pause dur="0.2"/> # came to become one of these great heroes and he proclaimed <pause dur="0.5"/> as he crossed the Andes <pause dur="0.4"/> leading <pause dur="0.2"/> his <pause dur="0.2"/> soon to be victorious republican army <pause dur="0.6"/> chum to victory <pause dur="0.6"/> i'm leaving it now <pause dur="0.3"/> and again i found this didn't quite work <pause dur="0.4"/> but he <trunc>c</trunc> and he had proclaimed as he crossed the Andes <reading>oh dear <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> beautiful Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> once again you occupy the rank of a nation</reading> after it had been liberated he suggests that # Chile <pause dur="0.3"/> again is occupying <pause dur="0.7"/> the rank of nation one might ask what it means to say that Chile was once again occupying the rank of nation <pause dur="0.8"/> now what does that <pause dur="0.6"/> mean <pause dur="0.9"/> # it might be said as you were suggesting a moment ago that Chile wasn't a nation at all <pause dur="0.7"/> before it was independent <pause dur="0.5"/> from Spain <pause dur="0.4"/> and i think this is another typical element of this early nineteenth century Spanish American nationalism <pause dur="0.5"/> that's to say that while some individuals some republican leaders <pause dur="0.4"/> laid stress on the need to create a nation some people did this

some people suggested that there wasn't any sort of nation there <pause dur="0.5"/> and they had to forge it out of <pause dur="0.4"/> the raw earth <pause dur="0.6"/> other republican leaders and this was a much more typical <pause dur="0.5"/> form of <pause dur="0.6"/> discourse <pause dur="0.4"/> insisted that they were merely <pause dur="0.2"/> through advocating independence they were merely rescuing <pause dur="0.4"/> the nation <pause dur="0.5"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> some sort of unjust servitude into which it had been plunged by the Spanish the suggestion in other words is that the nation was always there <pause dur="0.8"/> that it didn't come into existence at independence <pause dur="0.3"/> now those of you who read The Jamaica Letter <pause dur="1.0"/> for the last seminar <pause dur="0.5"/> will have had an encounter with this sort of language <pause dur="1.2"/> if you cast your minds back to Simón Bolívar's Jamaica Letter <pause dur="1.0"/> you'll recall that he talks repeatedly <pause dur="0.5"/> about <pause dur="0.5"/> we the Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> about America about the American nations <pause dur="0.5"/> about the American peoples <pause dur="0.2"/> as having been there <pause dur="0.2"/> prior to <pause dur="0.2"/> the arrival of the Spanish he describes the period of Spanish rule <pause dur="0.3"/> as three-hundred years of tyranny <pause dur="1.1"/> i think that very phrase appears in The Jamaica

Letter that became a very resonant phrase for the republican leaders <pause dur="1.4"/> but that this period of tyranny had not been sufficient <pause dur="0.2"/> to squash <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> nationalist impulses <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.6"/> the Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> so if you look at The Jamaica Letter i think you can you'll see good examples of this sort of language <pause dur="1.0"/> not from Chile but <pause dur="0.4"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> farther north <pause dur="0.6"/> from Venezuela <pause dur="0.6"/> and well <pause dur="0.4"/> # New Granada as a whole <pause dur="1.1"/> so i think that there you've had a bit of a brush with this idea and he talks about the <pause dur="0.4"/> he uses the word nation and you can go back and have a look at it and see what he has to say <pause dur="2.3"/> now i want to spend a little more time thinking about what this suggestion that there had always been a nation <pause dur="0.3"/> how how that works <pause dur="0.4"/> well <pause dur="1.0"/> what does it mean to go back to our example of Chile <pause dur="1.0"/> if one was going to talk about there always having been a Chilean nation <pause dur="0.5"/> how was one going to make this work how was this <pause dur="0.5"/> argument going to run <pause dur="0.5"/> well <pause dur="0.9"/> clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> the period of Spanish rule had been a period of denial of national

aspirations i mean there was no question for the <trunc>re</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the republicans <pause dur="0.4"/> that that was what had occurred <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> what was it what was the true Chilean nation that was being suppressed by this period of Spanish tyranny that's the question <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> faced these <pause dur="0.3"/> creators of <pause dur="0.7"/> # new Chilean nationalism they had to cast around for some sort of Chilean nation <pause dur="0.4"/> they had to find something that they could legitimately hold up and say that was what Chile was before the Spanish <pause dur="0.6"/> came and arrived <pause dur="0.4"/> well <pause dur="0.8"/> fortunately for Chilean nationalists they had a suitable object <pause dur="0.7"/> of nationalistic reverence <pause dur="0.2"/> close to hand <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> this these were the Araucanian Indians <pause dur="0.6"/> i will i will <pause dur="0.4"/> write this <pause dur="0.6"/> and you know i'll misspell it for you on <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> the board <pause dur="1.8"/> i can't spell anything A-U-R-O-<kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/>C-A-<pause dur="0.3"/>N-I-<pause dur="0.4"/>A-<pause dur="0.5"/>N i think that's right <pause dur="0.6"/> maybe it's A-R-<pause dur="0.4"/>A-U <pause dur="0.3"/> yes <pause dur="2.9"/><event desc="wipes board" iterated="y" dur="1"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> A-U-R-A-U that looks right to me <pause dur="0.9"/> no <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="wipes board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> we'll get there in the end <pause dur="4.2"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/>

<trunc>araucan</trunc> does anybody know botany <pause dur="1.6"/> no <pause dur="0.7"/> then you could spell it for me if anybody knew botany you could spell that for me <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> your encounter with the # word <pause dur="0.3"/> araucania <pause dur="0.5"/> would perhaps have been in the form of <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> the monkey puzzle tree <pause dur="1.4"/> do you know these weird trees <pause dur="1.0"/> do you know what i mean <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="nod heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> those are from Chile those are sometimes called araucanians <pause dur="1.9"/> those trees they're named after the same Indians <pause dur="0.5"/> because they grow <pause dur="0.5"/> in Chile <pause dur="0.7"/> anyway who are the Araucanians so badly spelled Indians <pause dur="0.6"/> the the Araucanians were <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the original <pause dur="0.3"/> indigenous groups that had inhabited the region that became Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> when the Spanish <pause dur="0.2"/> arrived <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.8"/> they had put up <pause dur="0.3"/> a <pause dur="0.4"/> prolonged resistance <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> the Spanish conquistadors <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.7"/> particularly <pause dur="0.4"/> the sixteenth and the <trunc>sevent</trunc> and in continuing into the seventeenth and indeed up until <pause dur="0.5"/> the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries throughout the entire period of the Spanish <pause dur="0.4"/> colony <pause dur="0.4"/> the Araucanians had continued to sort of hold off <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> onslaughts of <pause dur="0.3"/>

the Spanish colonial state <pause dur="1.0"/> and had <pause dur="0.2"/> without question <pause dur="0.2"/> resisted <pause dur="0.5"/> # their conversion into <pause dur="0.2"/> subjects <pause dur="0.4"/> of the Spanish king <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> what happens there they were i mean there were these these these people who definitely existed so what happens <pause dur="0.3"/> was that in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.7"/> Creole nationalists began to celebrate <pause dur="0.4"/> the daring exploits of the Araucanian Indians who began to be presented as <pause dur="0.4"/> the original Chileans <pause dur="0.3"/> Simón Bolívar for example proclaimed the Araucanians to have been proud republicans <pause dur="1.3"/> and there's no particular evidence that the Araucanians had had a republican form of rule <pause dur="0.4"/> but there's the meaning of this rhetorical phrase i think should be evident <pause dur="0.5"/> Chilean nationalists began to describe themselves as the true sons <pause dur="0.3"/> of the Araucanians <pause dur="0.8"/> indeed some people even referred to the ongoing war of independence against the Spanish as <pause dur="0.5"/> the war of Araucanian independence <pause dur="1.4"/> Araucanian in other words began to become a poetic way of

saying Chile <pause dur="0.9"/> for for these individuals <pause dur="1.2"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> what i'm suggesting is that one way in which these republican leaders tried <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="1.6"/> create a sense of nationalism <pause dur="0.3"/> was through inventing an appropriate <pause dur="0.7"/> heroic <pause dur="0.4"/> national past <pause dur="0.8"/> now why do i say invent and i just said that the Araucanians really existed <pause dur="1.3"/> and that they indeed had <pause dur="0.6"/> resisted <pause dur="0.6"/> the Spanish <pause dur="0.3"/> well i think that it's <pause dur="0.2"/> the reason i would like to use the word invent to <pause dur="0.6"/> describe <pause dur="0.6"/> this process of celebration of Araucanian <pause dur="0.9"/> heroism <pause dur="0.3"/> was that the leaders of Chilean independence were <pause dur="0.2"/> by no <pause dur="0.2"/> sense at all <pause dur="0.3"/> the true descendants of the Araucanians <pause dur="0.6"/> and if anything <pause dur="0.4"/> the leaders of <pause dur="0.2"/> the republican movement <pause dur="0.5"/> were <pause dur="0.4"/> the perhaps descendants of the hated Spanish i mean these were largely Creole leaders who were putting forth this rhetoric about <pause dur="1.0"/> the Araucanians they were not people of of Indian descent themselves they were people who were <pause dur="0.4"/> Europeanized in their culture <pause dur="0.5"/> and who <pause dur="0.3"/> were <pause dur="0.3"/> of European extraction <pause dur="1.1"/> moreover <pause dur="0.2"/> more than this the actual genuine descendants

of the Araucanians who were still very much <pause dur="0.5"/> # in existence in the early nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> did not always share <pause dur="0.4"/> the Creoles' enthusiasm for the new state <pause dur="0.8"/> on the contrary a number of the Indians living in Chile <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>s</trunc> actually supported the Spanish crown <pause dur="0.6"/> in the war of independence <pause dur="0.9"/> so the point i'm making here is that the development of the idea <pause dur="0.9"/> of Chilean nationhood <pause dur="0.4"/> relied in part on on what i think one can fairly describe as an invention of a heroic past <pause dur="1.4"/> <trunc>the</trunc> these Araucanians were were people who were roped only somewhat awkwardly into <pause dur="0.6"/> the general <pause dur="0.4"/> propagandistic drive <pause dur="0.3"/> to support Chilean independence <pause dur="0.6"/> however <pause dur="0.4"/> once <pause dur="0.2"/> republicans <pause dur="0.2"/> seize on the Araucanians as the original Chileans as the source of all <pause dur="0.3"/> Chilean republicanism <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.7"/> at least provided it was intended to provide <pause dur="0.8"/> some sort of common past to which <pause dur="0.3"/> all new Chileans supposedly <pause dur="0.5"/> had some sort of access something which they all supposedly had in common that we were all <pause dur="0.3"/> republican leaders proclaimed descendants of the

Araucanians <pause dur="0.4"/> either <pause dur="0.6"/> actually <pause dur="0.4"/> or metaphorically <pause dur="1.3"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> here at least is here is something here is one element <pause dur="0.3"/> that one might <pause dur="0.3"/> regard as being an important part <pause dur="0.4"/> of creating a sense of nationalism that is to say have a feeling you have something in common <pause dur="0.9"/> with the other people in your nation <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> however i think one might suggest that <pause dur="1.1"/> regarding yourself as a nation requires <pause dur="1.3"/> not only <pause dur="0.8"/> that you have <pause dur="0.2"/> something in common <pause dur="0.7"/> with other people in the nation you might also <trunc>s</trunc> it might be suggested and i think there's often suggested by people who write about nationalism that you also need to feel different from everybody else <pause dur="0.8"/> members of a nation as often suggested by people who write <pause dur="0.2"/> weighty tomes on nationalism <pause dur="0.7"/> need to feel separate from those people who aren't members of the nation in some way <pause dur="1.0"/> i think i'll take i'll take another little poll <pause dur="0.3"/> how many people here actually here feel <pause dur="0.4"/> that in <trunc>s</trunc> in some way at all the British are different from the French <pause dur="1.9"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" iterated="n" n="ss"/> yeah <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah i

think there's a general sense of differentness <pause dur="0.4"/> coming out here <pause dur="0.3"/> and i'm not going to ask you why <pause dur="0.6"/> you think <pause dur="0.4"/> # this is the case <pause dur="0.4"/> but there are several distinctive things it seems to me about the U-K <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.5"/> make it different from France <pause dur="0.2"/> and which you might regard as essential elements of national ideology <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean for one thing a really obvious thing that one might mention <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> that a different language is spoken <pause dur="0.7"/> in these two different countries between Britain and France <pause dur="0.9"/> anyone going to argue with that <pause dur="1.1"/> no <pause dur="0.2"/> good <pause dur="0.6"/> i think another thing that we might note is the clear geographical distinction <pause dur="0.2"/> that separates <pause dur="0.3"/> France <pause dur="0.8"/> and Britain <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> here is or here are two elements oft-cited <pause dur="0.5"/> as classic components of nationalistic identity <pause dur="0.4"/> a distinct language <pause dur="0.3"/> and some kind of <pause dur="0.6"/> geographical cohesion as a <pause dur="0.4"/> as a place well <pause dur="0.4"/> how many of these features applied <pause dur="0.8"/> to continue <pause dur="0.2"/> our example to Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> let's just stick with Chile for a minute well <pause dur="0.4"/> language for one thing hardly served to distinguish

Chileans from <pause dur="0.3"/> Peruvians or Mexicans or anyone else <pause dur="0.4"/> if anything language was a source of unity <pause dur="1.3"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> # it's not quite true to say that everybody in Spanish America spoke Spanish <pause dur="0.3"/> that's not quite true <pause dur="0.5"/> there are for example <pause dur="1.0"/> parts of Spanish America where the majority of the population spoke an indigenous language like Aymara or <pause dur="0.2"/> Quechua do you want me to write that on the board <pause dur="0.6"/> with my wonderful spelling <pause dur="0.3"/> or no <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="shake heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> no good <pause dur="0.5"/> good <pause dur="0.7"/> however despite this despite these pockets of <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>que</trunc> Quechua speakers in Peru for example Spanish was the lingua franca <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.7"/> this area <pause dur="0.6"/> inhabitants in Chile and from Chile and from Venezuela for example would be able to converse <pause dur="0.2"/> with each other without <pause dur="0.4"/> any real sense of difference at all <pause dur="0.2"/> so language doesn't seem to be working as a marker of difference <pause dur="1.0"/> what about geography <pause dur="1.2"/> what about that <pause dur="0.5"/> well i think this is a more <trunc>perv</trunc> persuasive area <pause dur="0.6"/> for national demarcation <pause dur="0.5"/> it's an interesting fact that if one looks at the frontiers <pause dur="0.3"/> of these new republics that

came into existence after independence <pause dur="0.5"/> they <pause dur="0.9"/> coincided <pause dur="0.7"/> remarkably precisely <pause dur="0.3"/> with the frontiers <pause dur="0.4"/> of the former viceroyalties <pause dur="0.4"/> during the colonial period now i've got a little <trunc>m</trunc> <event desc="turns on overhead projector" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> that's what this map is supposed to show <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to show the amazing <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> overlap <pause dur="0.8"/> oh <pause dur="0.9"/> between <pause dur="2.8"/><event desc="pulls down screen" iterated="n"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> let's see <event desc="adjusts overhead projector" iterated="n"/> first of all it's on the ceiling <event desc="moves board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> second of all <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="adjusts overhead projector" iterated="y" dur="6"/> it's out of focus tell me when that's in focus </u><pause dur="1.5"/> <u who="sm0055" trans="pause"> mm <pause dur="1.4"/> mm </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> here we have <pause dur="0.3"/> a map showing <pause dur="0.6"/> broadly you can look at the one in front of you if you prefer <pause dur="0.4"/> the contours of <pause dur="0.4"/> the colonial <pause dur="0.2"/> viceroyalties in seventeen-eighty and you can see up here <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here's the viceroyalty of New Granada <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> there's the viceroyalty of Peru extending down into Chile <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here's the viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> and up there we have <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> Mexico the viceroyalty of New Spain <pause dur="0.5"/> now if <kinesic desc="puts transparency on top of current transparency" iterated="n"/> i hope this works <pause dur="0.2"/> if we

superimpose over this <pause dur="0.7"/> will this work this will be <pause dur="0.7"/> is this working <pause dur="2.7"/> is that working <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="takes off top transparency" iterated="n"/> here let me just show you <pause dur="0.3"/> here's the map <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.8"/> eighteen-thirty of their rough divisions in eighteen-thirty okay <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here we have <pause dur="0.2"/> Mexico <pause dur="0.2"/> you can see that <pause dur="0.4"/> Central America has broken off Central America has kind of split off as a new place of its own <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Gran Colombia is there <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Peru is there <pause dur="0.8"/> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Rio de la Plata's there we get Chile <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> and Bolivia and Paraguay popping up <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> basically it looks pretty strikingly similar and this <kinesic desc="puts transparency on top of current transparency" iterated="n"/> now i hope this does work <pause dur="0.7"/> if we lay one on the top of the other we should see <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> the coincidence <pause dur="0.9"/> of these divisions is that working <pause dur="0.8"/> yeah <pause dur="0.7"/> i think you can see <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> the stripy bits <pause dur="0.3"/> are the old colonial divisions and you can see <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> some changes but i mean basically <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Gran Colombia is the same <pause dur="0.4"/> as the viceroyalty of New Granada pretty much right <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> there continues Mexico up there <pause dur="0.3"/> with the loss of <pause dur="1.0"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # Central America <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> there's Peru continuing to be Peru Chile has split off but i mean there <pause dur="0.5"/> it's really striking

similarities in other words the frontiers i think <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="turns off overhead projector" iterated="n"/> these new republics <pause dur="0.3"/> suggests <pause dur="0.2"/> that some sense of geographical <pause dur="1.9"/> unity <pause dur="0.2"/> was created during the colonial period itself i mean these boundaries those colonial divisions <pause dur="0.4"/> were things that were <pause dur="1.3"/> created <pause dur="0.4"/> partly <pause dur="0.2"/> in acknowledgement of existing <pause dur="1.1"/> # the frontiers of existing empires i mean Peru <pause dur="0.7"/> had something to do with the frontiers of the Inca state <pause dur="0.4"/> but basically not very much i mean basically these colonial divisions were things that were superimposed on the continent by the Spanish <pause dur="0.4"/> without <pause dur="0.3"/> particular reference to <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> geographical or cultural integrity <pause dur="0.3"/> at the time that these boundaries were drawn up <pause dur="0.4"/> yet <pause dur="1.2"/> three-hundred years later <trunc>o</trunc> or so by <pause dur="0.4"/> independence <pause dur="0.4"/> these boundaries have taken on enough of a life of their own that they persist <pause dur="0.5"/> after independence <pause dur="0.9"/> they persist in shaping <pause dur="0.4"/> of the the geography of the new republic <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> i think that one could suggest <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> the colonial period in Spanish America which

had created these administrative units which is what the viceroyalties <pause dur="0.4"/> really were <pause dur="0.4"/> did <pause dur="0.8"/> lend to the new republican project <pause dur="0.3"/> one <pause dur="0.4"/> element for for <trunc>na</trunc> some sense of nationalism <pause dur="0.3"/> which was these broad divisions that separated people in Mexico <pause dur="0.3"/> from people <pause dur="0.3"/> in Gran Colombia or that made a distinction between Gran Colombia and Peru to some extent <pause dur="0.9"/> but is this enough i mean is geographical <pause dur="0.5"/> are geographical boundaries <pause dur="0.3"/> sufficient <pause dur="0.4"/> to create a sense of nationalism <pause dur="1.2"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> one can already say maybe they weren't because here we see what happens to Chile and one <trunc>as</trunc> one might ask how does Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> come into existence at all if these geographical boundaries were so tremendously <pause dur="0.4"/> predominant you might think there's some reason for suggesting that <pause dur="1.1"/> geography alone doesn't create a sense of <pause dur="0.3"/> nationalism i mean there are all sorts of <pause dur="0.4"/> broad entities that you are members of that you might not think of yourselves as having any kind of sense of national <pause dur="0.4"/> connection to <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean to give a <trunc>f</trunc> there's

a famous quote from somebody called Benedict Anderson who's written particularly <pause dur="0.3"/> interestingly <pause dur="0.5"/> on <pause dur="0.8"/> the question of nationalism he commented on exactly this issue of how geographical boundaries don't necessarily in themselves <pause dur="0.6"/> create a nationalistic sense <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> he said he argues that <reading>in themselves market zones <pause dur="0.2"/> national <trunc>geo</trunc> natural geographic or political <pause dur="0.4"/> administrative units do not create emotive attachments</reading> he suggested and he went on to say <pause dur="0.4"/> rather memorably <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>who would willingly die for the European Economic Community</reading> <pause dur="1.5"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> i think that's an interesting <trunc>sig</trunc> example of <pause dur="0.6"/> a geographical <pause dur="0.3"/> entity <pause dur="1.4"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't <trunc>pro</trunc> hasn't brought with it any sense of nationalism i <trunc>th</trunc> as far as anyone has been able to discern <pause dur="0.9"/> at all in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> mere geographical <pause dur="0.4"/> or economic <pause dur="0.4"/> unity is not necessarily enough <pause dur="0.2"/> to create a sense <pause dur="0.5"/> of nationhood even though it perhaps <pause dur="0.2"/> helps <pause dur="0.3"/> so we need something more <pause dur="0.2"/> we need to go we need <pause dur="0.2"/> more i mean

everything i've been doing up until now is saying but that's not enough i mean we need more <pause dur="0.6"/> well <pause dur="1.8"/> i said <pause dur="0.2"/> some minutes ago <pause dur="0.4"/> that one thing <pause dur="0.4"/> that might be a useful element <pause dur="0.2"/> of creating some sense of nationalism is not only a sense of unity <pause dur="0.4"/> but a sense of feeling <pause dur="0.3"/> different <pause dur="0.4"/> from <pause dur="0.5"/> somebody <pause dur="0.4"/> in a sense they're feeling that there were there were outsiders who weren't <pause dur="0.5"/> Chilean in some sense <pause dur="1.8"/> there was after independence there was one <pause dur="0.8"/> obvious group <pause dur="1.0"/> to be <pause dur="0.3"/> put in the role of outsider i think there was one obvious category of people who the Chileans could say they definitely weren't <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> that obvious answer is the Spanish i mean i think that's the one <pause dur="1.0"/> obvious category of people <pause dur="0.4"/> that Chilean nationalists could construct themselves as being in opposition <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="1.5"/> now <pause dur="0.9"/> after independence what happens is that there is in fact <pause dur="0.4"/> a deliberate <pause dur="0.3"/> exclusion <pause dur="0.4"/> of <trunc>spani</trunc> of the Spanish <pause dur="0.5"/> from <pause dur="0.4"/> positions of importance from positions of political importance positions of economic importance this happens

across <pause dur="0.5"/> Spanish America <pause dur="0.4"/> in some places such as Mexico <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> attempt to categorize the Spanish as the the # <pause dur="0.9"/> the <pause dur="1.0"/> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> the other <pause dur="0.2"/> to use this this # <pause dur="0.9"/> somewhat useful phrase <pause dur="0.4"/> was manifested really dramatically by the fact that in <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>s</trunc> eighteen-twenty-eight eighteen-twenty-seven and eighteen-twenty-eight the Spanish were actually expelled from Mexico the Spanish state actually <pause dur="0.3"/> expelled all Spaniards the Mexican state expelled all Spaniards <pause dur="1.1"/> from the Mexican republic <pause dur="0.6"/> regardless of whether they supported independence or not <pause dur="0.7"/> that's an extreme example what we see is i think rejection of <pause dur="1.1"/> the Spanish heritage <pause dur="0.5"/> of the continent <pause dur="0.8"/> as as across the # the the region <pause dur="0.7"/> this is something that started during the wars of independence Simón Bolívar who i've been using as my my other example i think Simón Bolívar for example <pause dur="1.6"/> made deliberate efforts during the war of independence <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> draw a line between the Spanish and everybody else he for example in eighteen-thirteen issued a famous proclamation called <pause dur="0.5"/>

the proclamation of war to the death <pause dur="0.5"/> in which he declared in Venezuela <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> all Spaniards who did not <pause dur="0.3"/> explicitly embrace the cause of independence <pause dur="0.3"/> would be killed <pause dur="0.3"/> by his forces <pause dur="0.2"/> however all Americans even those who rejected independence and supported the Spanish crown <pause dur="0.5"/> would be spared by virtue <pause dur="0.2"/> of being <pause dur="0.4"/> not Spanish <pause dur="1.1"/> as he put it <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>the single title Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> shall be your safeguard and guarantee <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>o</trunc> our arms have come to protect you <pause dur="0.2"/> and they shall never be raised <pause dur="0.4"/> against a single one of you <pause dur="0.7"/> or your brothers</reading> <pause dur="0.9"/> in other words he's here in this very early <pause dur="0.2"/> phase of the move towards nationalism in eighteen-thirteen <pause dur="0.7"/> suggesting <pause dur="0.3"/> that there is some kind of <pause dur="0.8"/> national identity created in opposition to the Spanish the Americans <pause dur="0.4"/> are the people who aren't Spanish <pause dur="1.0"/> so in other words <pause dur="0.4"/> the leaders of independence deliberately played on <pause dur="0.4"/> the differences <pause dur="0.4"/> the often <pause dur="0.4"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> entirely obvious differences between <pause dur="0.3"/> the Spanish and the Americans between <pause dur="0.5"/> the Spanish

and the Indians <pause dur="0.4"/> between <pause dur="0.3"/> the Spanish and the Creoles <pause dur="0.8"/> as <pause dur="0.3"/> part of an attempt to <pause dur="0.3"/> create some sense <pause dur="0.3"/> of distinct identity <pause dur="0.3"/> # in <trunc>c</trunc> in in the sense of not being Spanish and thus <pause dur="0.5"/> the advocates of independence played very deliberately <pause dur="0.4"/> on <pause dur="0.9"/> the cruelty of the Spanish during the conquest this is what Bolívar's phrase from The Jamaica Letter of three-hundred years of tyranny <pause dur="0.3"/> for example <pause dur="0.3"/> fits in <pause dur="0.8"/> and they sought to distance themselves from all things <pause dur="0.3"/> Spanish <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words the <trunc>re</trunc> attempt was made <pause dur="0.2"/> to convince the inhabitants of the Americas <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> they were united in not being Spanish <pause dur="0.3"/> that not being Spanish became the organizing principle around which these these new states were <pause dur="0.6"/> # were <trunc>s</trunc> were shaped during this early period <pause dur="1.2"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> i think i want to conclude rather quickly at this stage i want to say a few words in conclusion 'cause there's something else that i want <pause dur="0.3"/> to do <pause dur="0.8"/> but what i'd like to do to conclude is i'd like to try to sum up i'd like to try to just remind you <pause dur="0.5"/> of what i said <pause dur="0.7"/> in

this lecture <pause dur="1.2"/> i i mentioned at the very beginning a number of things <pause dur="0.2"/> that didn't change <pause dur="0.3"/> in the <pause dur="0.6"/> immediate aftermath of independence i talked about the <pause dur="0.7"/> fiscal and economic continuity <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.5"/> the period after independence however i then went on to remind you and to <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> alert you to the <pause dur="1.2"/> role of nationalism to the period of the nineteenth century as being a period of resurgent nationalism to the role of nationalism in creating <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> some kind of new <pause dur="0.3"/> sense of these new republics <pause dur="0.4"/> the period after the wars of independence <pause dur="0.4"/> may be defined i think <pause dur="0.4"/> as a period <pause dur="0.3"/> during which these new states these new republics sought to <pause dur="1.0"/> present themselves to define themselves to create themselves as nations <pause dur="0.5"/> after three centuries of <pause dur="0.5"/> colonialism the new <pause dur="0.3"/> Spanish American republics <pause dur="0.3"/> had to create <pause dur="0.2"/> new identities for themselves <pause dur="0.4"/> as republics to use this nice phrase of Benedict Anderson who i mentioned a moment ago <pause dur="0.5"/> # this was a time <pause dur="0.2"/> during which the political leaders <pause dur="0.7"/> of these new republics urged Americans <pause dur="0.3"/> to create

imagined communities that's a phrase <pause dur="0.5"/> # that Benedict Anderson has used imagined communities to try to describe <pause dur="0.7"/> the process that i've been talking about to to try to <trunc>descr</trunc> describe <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.6"/> way in which nationalism isn't simply <pause dur="0.4"/> something founded in <pause dur="0.4"/> language or geography it's founded in a sense of <pause dur="0.9"/> shared community which was something that these leaders had to <pause dur="0.2"/> create they had to <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> build up <pause dur="0.3"/> out of <pause dur="1.2"/> a lack out of an absence of such sense <pause dur="1.0"/> now i've talked today a little bit about the attributes of nationalism i <trunc>s</trunc> talked about the way in which <pause dur="0.6"/> leaders tried to create a sense of national identity what we're going to look at <pause dur="0.2"/> for <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> and one might almost argue for the remainder of this year <pause dur="0.5"/> through all of next term we might argue <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>failure <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> of that early <pause dur="0.3"/> national project and the way in which <pause dur="0.8"/> politicians and <pause dur="0.2"/> inhabitants and citizens of these regions tried <pause dur="0.9"/> for throughout the rest of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century to <pause dur="0.6"/> shape a nation <pause dur="1.2"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> really reflected

its inhabitants that embraced <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> actual inhabitants of the region and the way in which <pause dur="1.1"/> politicians <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> proved unable <pause dur="0.7"/> to <pause dur="0.8"/> make their imagined nation <pause dur="0.6"/> coincide <pause dur="0.4"/> with the real nation <pause dur="0.4"/> was something that we'll look at <pause dur="0.3"/> for the remainder of the year <pause dur="0.2"/> that's going to be the project i think <pause dur="0.2"/> for the rest <pause dur="1.0"/> of the year <pause dur="0.6"/> now i want to stop my lecture there <pause dur="0.4"/> but i don't want you <pause dur="0.2"/> to go away yet <pause dur="0.5"/> for about ten more minutes because <pause dur="0.4"/> it is the time of year <pause dur="0.6"/> when one does course evaluation forms <pause dur="0.9"/> and i would be very grateful <pause dur="0.3"/> if you guys could do <pause dur="0.6"/> a course evaluation form <pause dur="0.6"/> for this course <pause dur="1.8"/> now i want to say a word about that there's been a new <pause dur="0.7"/> policy introduced in the History department i think it's a good policy <pause dur="0.6"/> on course evaluation forms and this is <pause dur="0.4"/> to encourage you to <pause dur="0.6"/> trust us that we don't just take these course evaluation forms and throw them in the bin which which we do not <pause dur="0.5"/> and i don't think anybody ever does <pause dur="0.2"/> but just to fill you with a sense of confidence that we pay attention to what you

say on these course evaluation forms the new policy is <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> i make a digest <pause dur="0.4"/> of the principal points needing attention that are raised in these forms <pause dur="0.7"/> i will do that as soon as you've completed them <pause dur="0.3"/> and i will give this <trunc>for</trunc> this <pause dur="1.0"/> digest <pause dur="0.4"/> back to you at the beginning of next term <pause dur="0.5"/> with <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>c</trunc> your points the things you think you need attention and my suggested responses to them <pause dur="0.3"/> so then you can then <pause dur="0.8"/> respond to those <pause dur="0.4"/> so i want to make it very clear <pause dur="0.3"/> that this we really do pay attention to these and we we <pause dur="0.7"/> are always interested in your comments i certainly am <pause dur="0.5"/> at least <pause dur="0.3"/> i also would be particularly interested in having comments from those of you who are in the so-called large group <pause dur="0.6"/>

the seminar group that # <pause dur="0.4"/> has about fifteen people in it <pause dur="0.6"/> that meets on <pause dur="0.4"/> Thursday mornings from whenever it is eleven <pause dur="1.0"/> i think is when it meets from eleven-thirty <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> if you have any particular comments about your feelings about being in this large group <pause dur="1.4"/> i particularly encourage you to write them down but we we indeed encourage all comments so here without further ado <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> are the forms <pause dur="10.6"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> what i think i'm going to do rather than just hover here while you complete them <pause dur="0.5"/> what i would ask you to do is when you've written <pause dur="0.3"/> whatever you would like to write <pause dur="0.4"/> can you leave them say on this desk <pause dur="0.9"/> and i will come back and collect them at three okay <pause dur="1.2"/> all right <pause dur="0.8"/> thank you very much