Video by Jasmine, Sami, and Sarita
The second source is by Alina Titei, Caudillismo: Identity Landmark of Hispanic American Authoritarian Political Culture. Titei presents three arguments made by scholars, including William H. Beezley mentioned previously, to explain the origins of caudillismo, “the Spanish monarchy, the colonial period, and the independence wars” (Titei. 286). Charles E. Chapman offers the first argument that […]
The first source is Caudillismo: an Interpretive Note by William H. Beezley, included in the Journal of Inter-American Studies. In the section, he first discusses the Spanish Empire’s system of rule by “theory and practice”. This created room for a relatively flexible government in the colonies which gave immense power to a single person governing […]
The reading this week painted the picture of Latin America being left in complete disarray following the departure of the Spanish. The resultant “power vacuum” was filled by the controversial Caudillos and the region was heavily divided between the new Latin America and the old. It is still unclear to me whether the Caudillos did more harm than good. Although they did provide a structure when there was none and did truly work in the best interests of their followers the Caudillos were also quick to turn to violence and only provided the “appearance of functioning states”. This is evident in the case of Peru and Bolivia when they were defeated by the poorer Chile. However, although it is easy to condemn the Caudillos as incompetent and unsuccessful if they had not stepped up into such a position of leadership anarchy could have ensued throughout the region with graver consequences.
What I found particularly interesting was the difficulties in ruling a region with such diverse geography. With such huge territories it was impossible to impose a centralised control over entire areas and so reading about the autonomy with which indigenous communities were able to live their lives gave a different perspective to that of the indigenous people who were viewed as less than in areas with a strong colonial presence. After reading this I was left with a desire to know how much of Latin America was truly under Spanish control? Were there any real attempts to expand control to more rural areas or were the Spanish content with their authority only truly upheld in urban areas and was the King and the Spanish back home aware of the limits of Spanish control in the colonies?
In Esteban Echevería’s The Slaughterhouse, the picture of a divided and corrupt Latin America is painted. The colonial institution of the Church is depicted as untrustworthy and exploitative serving only the Federalists and the elites and the portrayal of the Federalists is much the same. The gory description of the slaughter and the disorder of society depicted in the book represent the chaos of independent Latin America in the eyes of Echevería and his open support for a different regime to rule the region. Although this is a subjective and artistic representation of Latin America post colonisation I do believe it offers an insight into how one group viewed dictatorship and caudillismo.
Discussion questions
Do you think the Caudillos did more harm than good?
Were you surprised reading about the autonomous indigenous communities in colonial Latin America?
The reading this week painted the picture of Latin America being left in complete disarray following the departure of the Spanish. The resultant “power vacuum” was filled by the controversial Caudillos and the region was heavily divided between the new Latin America and the old. It is still unclear to me whether the Caudillos did more harm than good. Although they did provide a structure when there was none and did truly work in the best interests of their followers the Caudillos were also quick to turn to violence and only provided the “appearance of functioning states”. This is evident in the case of Peru and Bolivia when they were defeated by the poorer Chile. However, although it is easy to condemn the Caudillos as incompetent and unsuccessful if they had not stepped up into such a position of leadership anarchy could have ensued throughout the region with graver consequences.
What I found particularly interesting was the difficulties in ruling a region with such diverse geography. With such huge territories it was impossible to impose a centralised control over entire areas and so reading about the autonomy with which indigenous communities were able to live their lives gave a different perspective to that of the indigenous people who were viewed as less than in areas with a strong colonial presence. After reading this I was left with a desire to know how much of Latin America was truly under Spanish control? Were there any real attempts to expand control to more rural areas or were the Spanish content with their authority only truly upheld in urban areas and was the King and the Spanish back home aware of the limits of Spanish control in the colonies?
In Esteban Echevería’s The Slaughterhouse, the picture of a divided and corrupt Latin America is painted. The colonial institution of the Church is depicted as untrustworthy and exploitative serving only the Federalists and the elites and the portrayal of the Federalists is much the same. The gory description of the slaughter and the disorder of society depicted in the book represent the chaos of independent Latin America in the eyes of Echevería and his open support for a different regime to rule the region. Although this is a subjective and artistic representation of Latin America post colonisation I do believe it offers an insight into how one group viewed dictatorship and caudillismo.
Discussion questions
Do you think the Caudillos did more harm than good?
Were you surprised reading about the autonomous indigenous communities in colonial Latin America?
This week I felt like we truly saw the aftermath of the Spanish leaving Latin America. I do not mean this is a negative or positive way but rather in an attempt to understand perhaps why Latin America fell to so much war, violence and strife. After the independence from Spain Latin America had aContinue reading “Week 5: Caudillos Versus the Nation State”
I would like to focus this week’s blog post on the Slaughter-house reading because the passage itself was so compelling. To start off, I wanted to mention a detail that stuck out for me. It was the 50 bullocks who were meant to be killed were actually for the the upperclass instead of the the […]
Esteban Echeverría, El Matadero, is a piece of conflicting persuasion. Though the way of Caudillos was not in any way…
For this week’s blogpost, I’m going to write based on the questions posed in the lecture. These were the three questions: Why was post-independence Latin America such fertile ground for caudillos? Why were caudillos especially popular among the poor and powerless? Does even Echeverría show them some grudging respect? At this point in the 19thContinue reading “Week 5: Caudillos vs the Nation State”
week 5 lecture (video)
