nf0052: first of all i want to check does everybody have this is really boring 
does everybody have the new seminar sheet [0.2] for next term [0.4] if there's 
anybody who doesn't [0.3] have the new and slightly augmented seminar sheet [0.
2] for [0.5] the first seminar of next term that's in week one [0.3] take one 
[0.2] if you have one [0.2] don't take another one because we don't have five-
hundred of them okay [1.2] the other thing that goes with that is we're [0.2] 
kindly handing out to you the [0.7] one of the key texts for [0.3] that seminar 
again does anybody not have it [1.7] if you if you don't have one again [0.2] 
take it [0.6] and if you do have one then don't take one okay [1.0] there's 
that [0.5] the next thing i want to hand out to you which also doesn't relate 
to the lecture itself [0.7] is a revised list of essay topics that i gather 
there's been some 
nf0052: justified discontent with the [0.3] division [0.2] of sec-, between 
sections one two and three on the essays [0.3] that some i gather from namex 
that some of you were unhappy about [0.5] the [0.4] er the way which the 
divisions into the three 
sections was going to be [0.2] limiting your choice on writing essays [0.6] so 
what we've done is we've redrawn the boundary [1.7] between the three different 
sections [0.8] and slightly changed the essay topics [0.2] for [0.2] the next 
essay and for the third essay so take one of these [0.6] and pass them on [0.5] 
if for some reason [0.2] i don't think we've actually eliminated any essays i 
think we've just added new topics and moved them around [0.4] but if somehow 
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 [0.3] this 
is meant to be expanding rather than limiting choice [0.5] okay [0.9] and the 
third thing [0.4] no the fourth thing what are we up to [1.0] fourth [0.3] i 
don't know how many things [0.4] the next thing that i want to hand out to you 
actually does relate [0.3] to the lecture [0.4] this is [0.5] the one thing 
that does [0.5] this is [0.5] a two-sided handout [0.6] that duplicates 
material that i'm going to show you on the overhead [1.0] so take one of those 
[0.3] you don't need it yet [0.3] you'll know 
when you need it i'll tell you when you need it [0.7] okay [0.7] so are those 
all moving through the class [0.7] are you okay [0.6] okay [1.3] what i would 
like to do now is actually start [0.9] the lecture i'd like to indeed [0.4] 
begin talking about oh no God what is this thing doing it says [2.6] mm [0.3] 
pull the plug on the video first [0.5] what i would like to do is i would like 
to start [0.8] today's lecture [0.5] this is the last lecture of [0.6] the 
section on independence [0.6] but it's also the beginning of [0.3] a new 
section on the aftermath of independence so it's a sort of overlap [0.6] 
lecture [0.3] which [0.9] occupies this [0.3] marginal ambivalent position 
between the end of this term and the beginning of next term [0.3] just in the 
same way as it discusses this ambivalent period [0.3] between [0.4] the end of 
the revolutionary period when [0.5] outright fighting between the advocates of 
independence and [0.6] continued royalism [0.9] w-, was p-, was er [0.5] still 
going on and [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 [0.4] of creating new nations [0.7] in [0.7] the newly independent [1.
0] Latin American republics [1.0] so what we've looked at in the last couple of 
lectures the process through which [0.4] Spanish America became independent [0.
6] of [0.9] European rule [0.8] and what i want to look at is [0.2] the process 
of nationalism broadly [0.8] or to look at it another way i want to look at the 
question of what changed [1.0] after independence i want to ask [0.6] how did 
human existence in Spanish America [0.7] change [0.8] after [0.4] the process 
of political independence [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 [1.2] by which Spanish America separated itself [0.2] 
from [0.7] European rule [1.2] resulted in dramatic changes politically it 
resulted in Spanish America ceasing to be a Spanish colony and it implemented 
democratic rule [0.4] and republicanism [0.7] across the continent and er [0.8] 
this might seem like an enormously large change [0.7] and [0.4] politically it 
undoubtedly was an enormous 
change [0.4] what i would like to ask though is how this affected the 
individuals who were living in Spanish America who were [0.7] experiencing this 
change [1.0] i think the best way to proceed [0.6] in this examination is [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 [0.7] basically exactly 
the same [0.4] after independence from Spain [0.5] and to do this let's let's 
[0.2] start by [0.5] supposing for a moment say that [0.9] you [0.4] me all of 
us [0.3] were [0.5] say were Indians who were resident in an small village in 
the Andes in [0.2] the new republic of Ecuador say Ecuador was created [0.4] in 
eighteen-thirty as a separate republic [1.4] supposing that you lived in this 
this village well prior to [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 [0.
4] a certain amount of [0.7] er [1.4] o-, [0.3] pro-, artisanal products like 
hats [0.2] to sell at the local market [0.5] and you would lead an ex-, an 
existence in this small 
village well prior to independence [0.4] your [0.6] primary contacts with the 
state [0.4] such as it was with the colonial state [0.4] would have been [0.2] 
first of all the payment of Indian tribute do you remember that i talked about 
Indian tribute [0.7] in previous lectures [1.4] tribute would have been [0.2] 
one of the prime moments of connection [0.6] one of the prime annual moments of 
connection [0.3] with the colonial state you would have had contact with the 
state when you paid tribute and you would also p-, say [0.4] have had contact 
with the state when you for example purchased alcohol from the state [0.2] 
alcohol monopoly [0.6] after [0.8] er [0.3] alcohol became [0.8] a state 
monopoly if you wanted to buy anything at all to drink [0.4] you had to get it 
through the state [0.2] so those might those were the sorts of moments when you 
might actually have encountered [0.4] the state other than that [0.4] you might 
perhaps have had relatively little [0.4] formal contact [0.5] with [0.6] the [1.
0] er institutions of the colonial state unless you actually wanted to or 
unless you ended up [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 [0.5] the colonial 
state well [0.6] after independence i think these two things that i've 
mentioned [0.3] would have remained [0.7] your primary points of contact [0.8] 
after independence [0.5] er the Indian tribute was not abolished in Ecuador it 
it just continued the new republic [0.3] simply began [0.2] collecting [0.5] 
this tax that previously had been paid to the colonial state [0.6] they just 
stepped into the shoes of the colonial state in that regard [0.4] and they also 
continued [0.4] to [0.5] have an ultimate to make [0.3] alcohol a state 
monopoly [0.4] for for fiscal purposes for some decades afterwards [0.4] so 
fiscally at least in terms of government income [1.0] and therefore in terms of 
[0.4] taxation [1.0] these new republics just they just slotted themselves in 
[1.0] to [0.6] the structure [0.3] that the colonial state [0.8] had [0.6] 
itself established [0.6] yeah [0.2] so in that regard [0.2] fiscally if you 
look at where government revenues came from and if you look therefore 
what taxes members of the public [0.2] n-, citizens as they now were [0.4] 
would have been paying they were actually quite similar [1.2] i mean why was 
this this was for quite obvious reasons these new republics were in desperate 
financial straits [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 [0.5] during the war [0.3] about Indian 
tribute which they had condemned as being a loathsome vestige of Spanish 
oppression [0.8] which symbolized the [0.2] horrendous conditions in which the 
Indian population had been kept by the Spanish [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 [0.3] and they continue to collect it they give 
it a new name but they they continued to collect it [0.8] and so i just 
suggested that fiscally [0.6] and that is to say in terms of government income 
[0.6] very little changed [0.6] in the first decades [0.5] after 
independence [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 [0.3] economically [0.3] not that much changed [0.6] from the colonial 
period [0.7] for example [1.0] prior to independence [0.6] the viceroyalty of 
New Granada what did did anybody know for extra points what New Granada became 
[0.6] what [0.3] what state did it become after independence [2.0] 
sf0053: Gran Colombia [0.3] 
nf0052: yeah it became Gran Colombia [0.3] which [0.4] eventually fragmented 
into what's now [0.2] Colombia [0.8] and then Venezuela and Ecuador which as i 
said in eighteen-thirty [0.3] split off [0.8] so the viceroyalty of New Granada 
[0.5] had [0.4] depended [0.3] primarily on the export of gold for example that 
had been its p-, th-, [0.2] primary source of importance for the Spanish crown 
[0.3] that had been its biggest export [0.2] to Europe [0.6] and after 
independence not surprisingly gold continued to be [0.7] Colombia's [0.4] as it 
became [0.4] primary export the economic structure of the country wasn't 
revolutionized [0.2] by independence [0.4] er 
Ecuador for example continued to export hats as they had done [1.1] that's 
where the Panama hat comes from did i tell you this before [1.7] the the Panama 
hat comes from Ecuador isn't that a [0.6] a useful fact [1.1] to know and they 
continued to export hats they were a major hat exporter [0.6] for the region [1.
0] so in this ways in these regions you might argue that independence didn't 
bring about dramatic economic changes [0.2] as a whole [0.3] now i don't want 
to suggest that [0.3] total [0.7] er stagnation if that's the right word or or 
total continuity [0.4] characterized the entirety of the post-independence [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 [0.4] in some regions [0.
6] the new republican governments made substantial efforts to try to change the 
structure of the economy [0.3] Mexico i think is the strongest example of this 
in the eighteen-thirties [0.8] the government of Mexico there were a series 
succession of governments [0.4] who [1.0] 
deliberately attempted to [0.4] foment and support [0.2] domestic industry 
cloth making for example was explicitly being encouraged [0.7] by the 
governments of the nineteen of the eighteen-thirties [0.3] in Mexico because 
they wanted to try to protect the republic from [0.4] the flood of primarily 
British [0.4] imports and particularly British cloth [0.4] that they felt were 
[0.3] going were er [0.2] taking over the country and were going to be 
preventing the development of some kind of [0.8] autonomous national [0.6] er 
industry [0.4] so [1.0] in Mexico you see some attempt by these new governments 
to actually [0.5] change the way the economy is structured [1.0] but [0.7] i 
think that these were [0.2] exceptions these were this was not the general 
trend [0.5] for the first fifty years or so after independence [1.2] and [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 [1.3] if i were going to talk about [0.8] continuity i would be 
telling a very different story 
after eighteen-fifty i think the [0.7] er [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 [0.2] 
right now i want you to focus your attention on the first [0.5] couple of 
decades after independence up until about [1.0] er eighteen- [0.6] fifty or so 
[0.7] so [0.3] here i said well i said [0.7] government income didn't change 
that much i said the economy [0.5] didn't change [0.5] that much [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 [0.4] in [0.4] the viceroyalty as was [0.6] 
of the Rio de la Plata [0.4] that's what became Argentina [0.6] in the very 
south [1.0] prior to independence [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 [0.6] and [0.4] that was a point [0.3] from which goods were dispersed 
to other parts of Spanish America [0.2] and this role this im-, the most 
important role [0.5] in this 
trade based economy [0.4] was [0.4] played by Spanish merchants [0.6] in the 
colonial period [0.3] there was a an elite of very wealthy Spanish merchants 
who dominated this colonial trade [0.6] after independence out go the Spanish 
nobody wants Spanish merchants any more and the Spanish are er er generally [0.
2] er encouraged to leave [0.6] however [1.1] the basic [0.2] structure of the 
economy which revolves around trade does not change all that happens [0.2] is 
that [0.4] the role that had been played by Spanish merchants is taken over by 
Creoles [0.4] who step into the shoes [0.9] of the Spanish merchants and take 
over these trade networks [0.6] er as John Lynch m-, m-, might put it as as he 
[0.4] er describes it in one of his books same new old new rider [1.6] so [0.9] 
we don't have enormous fiscal or economic [0.2] changes [0.9] what about 
society in what ways was everyday life different [0.3] in an independent 
republic [1.0] i've already suggested that in some ways things might not be 
that different the state continues to collect taxes peasants continue [0.4] to 
work the land [0.3] traders 
continue to struggle for a living [1.1] was then am i then suggesting that 
actually [0.8] life in an independent nation was really just the same as in [0.
5] a colony [1.0] well [0.4] what i'd like you to focus on is [0.2] that phrase 
independent nation that's what i'd like you [0.4] to think about [0.7] and the 
id-, the th-, that phrase i think [0.4] suggests [0.5] one area where one might 
fruitfully look [0.3] for changes [0.7] in [0.8] society and culture [0.6] er 
[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 [1.2] yeah [1.0] do you remember the process of nation building do you 
remember reading about the n-, [0.4] process of nation building in Germany and 
Italy [0.4] during this period [0.6] does this ring bells [0.5] yeah [1.0] well 
[0.5] i think if you recall [0.2] studying those topics you surely talked about 
the growth of nationalism [0.8] in these regions [1.1] and this is what i'd 
like to talk about [0.5] now as i suggested at the beginning of the lecture [1.
2] w-, [0.2] well we might start by saying [0.6] what what is 
nationalism what does nationalism mean [0.4] if you look it up in a dictionary 
national-, the dictionary will say something helpful like nationalism is the 
devotion to the interests of a particular nation [1.0] now [0.8] this seems to 
me to beg the question of what a nation is [1.3] we might indeed ask were the 
Spanish colonies [0.5] prior to independence [0.4] were these nations [1.1] was 
[0.9] the viceroyalty of New Spain I-E Mexico was that [0.6] a nation [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 [0.3] nations how many thinks 
Mexico was a nation [1.0] prior to independence [1.4] absolutely nobody 
interesting how many thinks [0.4] how many thinks how many people think [0.3] 
that [1.2] it wasn't [1.7] yeah [1.2] yeah there's an overwhelming majority it 
seems to me in favour of [0.4] wasn't [1.1] that that's certainly my view [0.3] 
but it was not the view [0.4] of the advocates of independence [0.8] and this 
is something that i will talk about [0.3] in a moment [1.5] this is an area 
where there is currently a lot of 
rather interesting [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 [0.7] er 
[0.3] unequivocally it seems to me [0.2] that these places were not [0.2] 
nations so how do they become nations how does Mexico become Mexico how does it 
become [0.5] a nation [1.4] now [0.7] what happens i think [0.3] is that this 
doesn't this process doesn't occur naturally i think those of you who studied 
[0.9] European nationalism in the nineteenth century i think would probably [0.
8] agree with this [0.3] that nationalism is not something that springs fully 
formed [0.8] from pre-existing nations it's something which is encouraged [0.4] 
and developed [1.2] and er [0.4] created even one might say [1.1] by [0.2] 
people [0.6] and what i'd like us to look at is the way in which [0.9] the idea 
of nationalism was deliberately [0.5] fostered [0.5] by [0.3] the political 
leaders of these new republics in the first decades [0.3] after independence [1.
2] well [0.4] how you might ask do you foment an idea of 
nation and how do you create a sense [0.5] of nationalism [0.8] well [0.3] at 
the most basic level [0.5] one of the ways in which the early politicians in 
the first decades after independence [0.4] helped [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 [0.4] if one looks at [0.
4] the [0.9] proclamations the speeches the [0.6] ma-, er the manifestos and 
the [0.4] pieces of [0.3] discourse produced by [0.7] these early politicians 
one sees an incredible preponderance of the phrase nation of la nación [0.5] 
which is [0.9] just by s-, sheer numerical bulk if one counts the number of 
references to it is is quite striking [0.9] i think this is one of and indeed 
they talked also about the need to create a nation [0.5] and i want to take one 
example rather than just talking generally about Spanish America i want to look 
at Chile for [0.5] look at the process of creating some sense of nationalism in 
[0.3] Chile [0.8] in the first couple of decades after independence so you just 
have a concrete 
example that you can hang this stuff on [1.0] there's also some very nice work 
done on Chile i i should [0.5] in the spirit of scholarly [0.5] er [1.0] 
acknowledgement i should say that [0.4] what i'm about to say is taken partly 
from the work of Simon Collier who's [0.7] er so this is a footnote to my 
lecture [2.3] you know i like to [0.3] m-, [0.6] nod towards Simon Collier 
who's done this nice work on [0.3] on Chilean nationalism can you see that [0.
3] 
sm0054: no [0.2] 
nf0052: no [0.4] 
sm0055: [3.3] 
nf0052: can you see it now [0.4] good [2.4] and he's gone through a lot of 
these republican proclamations and texts and he's looked at how they talk about 
[0.6] the Chilean nation [0.2] and so for example he's [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 [0.
7] er [0.7] Chilean politicians asserted for example that the government ought 
to [0.3] create [0.4] give existence [0.3] politics and opinions [0.5] 
to a nation [0.3] which has never had them before [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 [0.6] right there it's just never had [0.
2] any existence or politics [0.5] or opinions [0.3] there's a somewhat 
contradictory [0.7] suggestion [0.7] journalists pro-, [0.3] proclaimed in 
their revolutionary [0.3] periodicals we are the founders of a nation [1.2] 
there was this [0.5] constant reference to the nation as this er [0.4] concrete 
thing [0.5] that really existed [1.2] there was intense celebration also in 
republican discourse of [0.8] the patria [0.2] the motherland [0.4] this is a 
vital term if one's going to be looking at this period this is [0.4] la patria 
[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 [0.5] what's 
interesting about it is patria [0.4] er in a sense would suggest fatherland [0.
4] it's etymologically [0.8] 
etymolologico-, i got lost on that word related [0.3] to [0.4] the word padre 
for father [0.8] so it suggests perhaps fatherland it's also feminine it's a 
feminine [0.4] noun [1.3] so [0.4] it somehow suggests motherland at the same 
time and in-, indeed people sometimes like to talk [0.5] even more all 
inclusively not just about the patria the the fatherland but about the [0.4] 
the madre patria [2.9] can you read that [0.9] can people read that [0.7] no [0.
4] the madre patria [0.3] which combines everything madre is mother [0.2] so 
it's the mother-father land in a sense [0.6] this was a phrase that was er 
particularly [0.2] popular during this [0.5] this period [1.3] there was great 
celebration then as i said of the patria of this new fatherland of the nation 
one of the heroes of independence wonderfully named Bernardo O'Higgins [0.4] 
isn't this a great name that the [0.3] one of the great heroes of Chilean 
independence was actually called O'Higgins [0.3] this points to the tremendous 
[0.5] impre-, er importance of [0.6] the British [0.7] and Irish [0.5] 
volunteers who went to fight for the republicans Bernardo O'Higgins [0.2] er 
came to become one of these great heroes and he proclaimed [0.5] as he crossed 
the Andes [0.4] leading [0.2] his [0.2] soon to be victorious republican army 
[0.6] chum to victory [0.6] i'm leaving it now [0.3] and again i found this 
didn't quite work [0.4] but he c-, and he had proclaimed as he crossed the 
Andes oh dear patria beautiful Chile [0.5] once again you occupy the rank of a 
nation after it had been liberated he suggests that er Chile [0.3] again is 
occupying [0.7] the rank of nation one might ask what it means to say that 
Chile was once again occupying the rank of nation [0.8] now what does that [0.
6] mean [0.9] er it might be said as you were suggesting a moment ago that 
Chile wasn't a nation at all [0.7] before it was independent [0.5] from Spain 
[0.4] and i think this is another typical element of this early nineteenth 
century Spanish American nationalism [0.5] that's to say that while some 
individuals some republican leaders [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 [0.5] and they 
had to forge it out of [0.4] the raw earth [0.6] other republican leaders and 
this was a much more typical [0.5] form of [0.6] discourse [0.4] insisted that 
they were merely [0.2] through advocating independence they were merely 
rescuing [0.4] the nation [0.5] from [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 [0.8] that it didn't come into existence at 
independence [0.3] now those of you who read The Jamaica Letter [1.0] for the 
last seminar [0.5] will have had an encounter with this sort of language [1.2] 
if you cast your minds back to Simón Bolívar's Jamaica Letter [1.0] you'll 
recall that he talks repeatedly [0.5] about [0.5] we the Americans [0.2] about 
America about the American nations [0.5] about the American peoples [0.2] as 
having been there [0.2] prior to [0.2] the arrival of the Spanish he describes 
the period of Spanish rule [0.3] as three-hundred years of tyranny [1.1] i 
think that very phrase appears in The Jamaica 
Letter that became a very resonant phrase for the republican leaders [1.4] but 
that this period of tyranny had not been sufficient [0.2] to squash [0.5] the 
[0.3] nationalist impulses [0.2] of [0.6] the Americans [0.2] so if you look at 
The Jamaica Letter i think you can you'll see good examples of this sort of 
language [1.0] not from Chile but [0.4] from [0.3] farther north [0.6] from 
Venezuela [0.6] and well [0.4] er New Granada as a whole [1.1] so i think that 
there you've had a bit of a brush with this idea and he talks about the [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 [2.3] now i want to spend a little more time thinking about what 
this suggestion that there had always been a nation [0.3] how how that works [0.
4] well [1.0] what does it mean to go back to our example of Chile [1.0] if one 
was going to talk about there always having been a Chilean nation [0.5] how was 
one going to make this work how was this [0.5] argument going to run [0.5] well 
[0.9] clearly [0.2] the period of Spanish rule had been a period of denial of 
national 
aspirations i mean there was no question for the re-, [0.2] the republicans [0.
4] that that was what had occurred [0.5] but [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 [0.2] that [0.3] faced these [0.3] creators of [0.7] er new 
Chilean nationalism they had to cast around for some sort of Chilean nation [0.
4] they had to find something that they could legitimately hold up and say that 
was what Chile was before the Spanish [0.6] came and arrived [0.4] well [0.8] 
fortunately for Chilean nationalists they had a suitable object [0.7] of 
nationalistic reverence [0.2] close to hand [1.2] and [0.2] this these were the 
Araucanian Indians [0.6] i will i will [0.4] write this [0.6] and you know i'll 
misspell it for you on the board [1.8] i can't spell anything A-U-R-O-C-A- [0.
3] N-I- [0.4] A- [0.5] N i think that's right [0.6] maybe it's A-R- [0.4] A-U 
[0.3] yes [2.9] A-U-R-A-U that looks right to me [0.9] no [1.0] we'll get there 
in the end [4.2] 
araucan-, does anybody know botany [1.6] no [0.7] then you could spell it for 
me if anybody knew botany you could spell that for me [0.4] because [0.3] er [0.
3] your encounter with the er word [0.3] araucania [0.5] would perhaps have 
been in the form of [0.8] er [0.4] the monkey puzzle tree [1.4] do you know 
these weird trees [1.0] do you know what i mean [0.9] yeah [0.5] those are from 
Chile those are sometimes called araucanians [1.9] those trees they're named 
after the same Indians [0.5] because they grow [0.5] in Chile [0.7] anyway who 
are the Araucanians so badly spelled Indians [0.6] the the Araucanians were [0.
2] one of the original [0.3] indigenous groups that had inhabited the region 
that became Chile [0.5] when the Spanish [0.2] arrived [1.3] now [0.8] they had 
put up [0.3] a [0.4] prolonged resistance [0.4] to [0.4] the Spanish 
conquistadors [0.4] in [0.7] particularly [0.4] the sixteenth and the sevent-, 
and in continuing into the seventeenth and indeed up until [0.5] the eighteenth 
and nineteenth centuries throughout the entire period of the Spanish [0.4] 
colony [0.4] the Araucanians had continued to sort of hold off [0.5] the [0.5] 
onslaughts of [0.3] 
the Spanish colonial state [1.0] and had [0.2] without question [0.2] resisted 
[0.5] er their conversion into [0.2] subjects [0.4] of the Spanish king [0.6] 
so [0.2] what happens there they were i mean there were these these these 
people who definitely existed so what happens [0.3] was that in the nineteenth 
century [0.7] Creole nationalists began to celebrate [0.4] the daring exploits 
of the Araucanian Indians who began to be presented as [0.4] the original 
Chileans [0.3] Simón Bolívar for example proclaimed the Araucanians to have 
been proud republicans [1.3] and there's no particular evidence that the 
Araucanians had had a republican form of rule [0.4] but there's the meaning of 
this rhetorical phrase i think should be evident [0.5] Chilean nationalists 
began to describe themselves as the true sons [0.3] of the Araucanians [0.8] 
indeed some people even referred to the ongoing war of independence against the 
Spanish as [0.5] the war of Araucanian independence [1.4] Araucanian in other 
words began to become a poetic way of 
saying Chile [0.9] for for these individuals [1.2] so [0.7] what i'm suggesting 
is that one way in which these republican leaders tried [0.3] to [1.6] create a 
sense of nationalism [0.3] was through inventing an appropriate [0.7] heroic [0.
4] national past [0.8] now why do i say invent and i just said that the 
Araucanians really existed [1.3] and that they indeed had [0.6] resisted [0.6] 
the Spanish [0.3] well i think that it's [0.2] the reason i would like to use 
the word invent to [0.6] describe [0.6] this process of celebration of 
Araucanian [0.9] heroism [0.3] was that the leaders of Chilean independence 
were [0.2] by no [0.2] sense at all [0.3] the true descendants of the 
Araucanians [0.6] and if anything [0.4] the leaders of [0.2] the republican 
movement [0.5] were [0.4] the perhaps descendants of the hated Spanish i mean 
these were largely Creole leaders who were putting forth this rhetoric about [1.
0] the Araucanians they were not people of of Indian descent themselves they 
were people who were [0.4] Europeanized in their culture [0.5] and who [0.3] 
were [0.3] of European extraction [1.1] moreover [0.2] more than this the 
actual genuine descendants 
of the Araucanians who were still very much [0.5] er in existence in the early 
nineteenth century [0.4] did not always share [0.4] the Creoles' enthusiasm for 
the new state [0.8] on the contrary a number of the Indians living in Chile [0.
4] s-, actually supported the Spanish crown [0.6] in the war of independence [0.
9] so the point i'm making here is that the development of the idea [0.9] of 
Chilean nationhood [0.4] relied in part on on what i think one can fairly 
describe as an invention of a heroic past [1.4] the-, these Araucanians were 
were people who were roped only somewhat awkwardly into [0.6] the general [0.4] 
propagandistic drive [0.3] to support Chilean independence [0.6] however [0.4] 
once [0.2] republicans [0.2] seize on the Araucanians as the original Chileans 
as the source of all [0.3] Chilean republicanism [0.3] this [0.7] at least 
provided it was intended to provide [0.8] some sort of common past to which [0.
3] all new Chileans supposedly [0.5] had some sort of access something which 
they all supposedly had in common that we were all [0.3] republican leaders 
proclaimed descendants of the 
Araucanians [0.4] either [0.6] actually [0.4] or metaphorically [1.3] so [1.1] 
here at least is here is something here is one element [0.3] that one might [0.
3] regard as being an important part [0.4] of creating a sense of nationalism 
that is to say have a feeling you have something in common [0.9] with the other 
people in your nation [0.9] yeah [0.4] however i think one might suggest that 
[1.1] regarding yourself as a nation requires [1.3] not only [0.8] that you 
have [0.2] something in common [0.7] with other people in the nation you might 
also s-, 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 [0.8] members of a nation as often suggested by people who write [0.2] 
weighty tomes on nationalism [0.7] need to feel separate from those people who 
aren't members of the nation in some way [1.0] i think i'll take i'll take 
another little poll [0.3] how many people here actually here feel [0.4] that in 
s-, in some way at all the British are different from the French [1.9] yeah [1.
2] yeah i 
think there's a general sense of differentness [0.4] coming out here [0.3] and 
i'm not going to ask you why [0.6] you think [0.4] er this is the case [0.4] 
but there are several distinctive things it seems to me about the U-K [0.3] 
which [0.5] make it different from France [0.2] and which you might regard as 
essential elements of national ideology [0.3] i mean for one thing a really 
obvious thing that one might mention [0.3] is [0.4] that a different language 
is spoken [0.7] in these two different countries between Britain and France [0.
9] anyone going to argue with that [1.1] no [0.2] good [0.6] i think another 
thing that we might note is the clear geographical distinction [0.2] that 
separates [0.3] France [0.8] and Britain [1.3] now [0.4] here is or here are 
two elements oft-cited [0.5] as classic components of nationalistic identity [0.
4] a distinct language [0.3] and some kind of [0.6] geographical cohesion as a 
[0.4] as a place well [0.4] how many of these features applied [0.8] to 
continue [0.2] our example to Chile [0.5] let's just stick with Chile for a 
minute well [0.4] language for one thing hardly served to distinguish 
Chileans from [0.3] Peruvians or Mexicans or anyone else [0.4] if anything 
language was a source of unity [1.3] yeah [0.3] er it's not quite true to say 
that everybody in Spanish America spoke Spanish [0.3] that's not quite true [0.
5] there are for example [1.0] parts of Spanish America where the majority of 
the population spoke an indigenous language like Aymara or [0.2] Quechua do you 
want me to write that on the board [0.6] with my wonderful spelling [0.3] or no 
[1.1] no good [0.5] good [0.7] however despite this despite these pockets of [1.
1] que-, Quechua speakers in Peru for example Spanish was the lingua franca [0.
5] of [0.7] this area [0.6] inhabitants in Chile and from Chile and from 
Venezuela for example would be able to converse [0.2] with each other without 
[0.4] any real sense of difference at all [0.2] so language doesn't seem to be 
working as a marker of difference [1.0] what about geography [1.2] what about 
that [0.5] well i think this is a more perv-, persuasive area [0.6] for 
national demarcation [0.5] it's an interesting fact that if one looks at the 
frontiers [0.3] of these new republics that 
came into existence after independence [0.5] they [0.9] coincided [0.7] 
remarkably precisely [0.3] with the frontiers [0.4] of the former viceroyalties 
[0.4] during the colonial period now i've got a little m-, [0.3] that's what 
this map is supposed to show [0.3] i want to show the amazing [0.3] er [0.3] 
overlap [0.8] oh [0.9] between [2.8] now [0.7] let's see first of all it's on 
the ceiling second of all [0.6] it's out of focus tell me when that's in focus 
[1.5] 
sm0055: mm [1.4] mm [0.4] 
nf0052: yeah [0.9] okay [0.2] here we have [0.3] a map showing [0.6] broadly 
you can look at the one in front of you if you prefer [0.4] the contours of [0.
4] the colonial [0.2] viceroyalties in seventeen-eighty and you can see up here 
[0.4] here's the viceroyalty of New Granada [0.4] there's the viceroyalty of 
Peru extending down into Chile [0.6] here's the viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata 
[0.7] and up there we have [1.0] er [0.7] Mexico the viceroyalty of New Spain 
[0.5] now if i hope this works [0.2] if we 
superimpose over this [0.7] will this work this will be [0.7] is this working 
[2.7] is that working [0.7] here let me just show you [0.3] here's the map [0.
2] of [0.8] eighteen-thirty of their rough divisions in eighteen-thirty okay [0.
4] here we have [0.2] Mexico [0.2] you can see that [0.4] Central America has 
broken off Central America has kind of split off as a new place of its own [0.
4] Gran Colombia is there Peru is there [0.8] Rio de la Plata's there we get 
Chile [0.7] and Bolivia and Paraguay popping up [0.7] but [0.2] basically it 
looks pretty strikingly similar and this now i hope this does work [0.7] if we 
lay one on the top of the other we should see [0.7] er [0.4] the coincidence [0.
9] of these divisions is that working [0.8] yeah [0.7] i think you can see [0.
4] the stripy bits [0.3] are the old colonial divisions and you can see [0.4] 
some changes but i mean basically [0.3] Gran Colombia is the same [0.4] as the 
viceroyalty of New Granada pretty much right [0.9] and [0.2] there continues 
Mexico up there [0.3] with the loss of [1.0] er Central America [0.3] there's 
Peru continuing to be Peru Chile has split off but i mean there [0.5] it's 
really striking 
similarities in other words the frontiers i think [0.5] of [1.0] these new 
republics [0.3] suggests [0.2] that some sense of geographical [1.9] unity [0.
2] was created during the colonial period itself i mean these boundaries those 
colonial divisions [0.4] were things that were [1.3] created [0.4] partly [0.2] 
in acknowledgement of existing [1.1] er the frontiers of existing empires i 
mean Peru [0.7] had something to do with the frontiers of the Inca state [0.4] 
but basically not very much i mean basically these colonial divisions were 
things that were superimposed on the continent by the Spanish [0.4] without [0.
3] particular reference to [0.8] er [1.3] geographical or cultural integrity [0.
3] at the time that these boundaries were drawn up [0.4] yet [1.2] three-
hundred years later o-, or so by [0.4] independence [0.4] these boundaries have 
taken on enough of a life of their own that they persist [0.5] after 
independence [0.9] they persist in shaping [0.4] of the the geography of the 
new republic [0.3] so [0.3] i think that one could suggest [0.4] that [0.6] er 
[1.2] the colonial period in Spanish America which 
had created these administrative units which is what the viceroyalties [0.4] 
really were [0.4] did [0.8] lend to the new republican project [0.3] one [0.4] 
element for for na-, some sense of nationalism [0.3] which was these broad 
divisions that separated people in Mexico [0.3] from people [0.3] in Gran 
Colombia or that made a distinction between Gran Colombia and Peru to some 
extent [0.9] but is this enough i mean is geographical [0.5] are geographical 
boundaries [0.3] sufficient [0.4] to create a sense of nationalism [1.2] well 
[0.3] one can already say maybe they weren't because here we see what happens 
to Chile and one as-, one might ask how does Chile [0.5] come into existence at 
all if these geographical boundaries were so tremendously [0.4] predominant you 
might think there's some reason for suggesting that [1.1] geography alone 
doesn't create a sense of [0.3] nationalism i mean there are all sorts of [0.4] 
broad entities that you are members of that you might not think of yourselves 
as having any kind of sense of national [0.4] connection to [0.5] i mean to 
give a f-, there's 
a famous quote from somebody called Benedict Anderson who's written 
particularly [0.3] interestingly [0.5] on [0.8] the question of nationalism he 
commented on exactly this issue of how geographical boundaries don't 
necessarily in themselves [0.6] create a nationalistic sense [0.4] and [0.8] he 
said he argues that in themselves market zones [0.2] national geo-, natural 
geographic or political [0.4] administrative units do not create emotive 
attachments he suggested and he went on to say [0.4] rather memorably [0.2] who 
would willingly die for the European Economic Community [1.5] now [0.2] i think 
that's an interesting sig-, example of [0.6] a geographical [0.3] entity [1.4] 
that [0.3] doesn't pro-, hasn't brought with it any sense of nationalism i th-, 
as far as anyone has been able to discern [0.9] at all in other words [0.3] 
mere geographical [0.4] or economic [0.4] unity is not necessarily enough [0.2] 
to create a sense [0.5] of nationhood even though it perhaps [0.2] helps [0.3] 
so we need something more [0.2] we need to go we need [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 [0.6] well [1.8] i said [0.2] some minutes ago [0.4] that one 
thing [0.4] that might be a useful element [0.2] of creating some sense of 
nationalism is not only a sense of unity [0.4] but a sense of feeling [0.3] 
different [0.4] from [0.5] somebody [0.4] in a sense they're feeling that there 
were there were outsiders who weren't [0.5] Chilean in some sense [1.8] there 
was after independence there was one [0.8] obvious group [1.0] to be [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 [0.9] and [0.3] that obvious 
answer is the Spanish i mean i think that's the one [1.0] obvious category of 
people [0.4] that Chilean nationalists could construct themselves as being in 
opposition [0.4] to [1.5] now [0.9] after independence what happens is that 
there is in fact [0.4] a deliberate [0.3] exclusion [0.4] of spani-, of the 
Spanish [0.5] from [0.4] positions of importance from positions of political 
importance positions of economic importance this happens 
across [0.5] Spanish America [0.4] in some places such as Mexico [0.3] this [0.
2] attempt to categorize the Spanish as the the er [0.9] the [1.0] th-, [0.4] 
the other [0.2] to use this this er [0.9] somewhat useful phrase [0.4] was 
manifested really dramatically by the fact that in [0.3] s-, eighteen-twenty-
eight eighteen-twenty-seven and eighteen-twenty-eight the Spanish were actually 
expelled from Mexico the Spanish state actually [0.3] expelled all Spaniards 
the Mexican state expelled all Spaniards [1.1] from the Mexican republic [0.6] 
regardless of whether they supported independence or not [0.7] that's an 
extreme example what we see is i think rejection of [1.1] the Spanish heritage 
[0.5] of the continent [0.8] as as across the er the the region [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 [1.6] 
made deliberate efforts during the war of independence [0.2] to [0.5] draw a 
line between the Spanish and everybody else he for example in eighteen-thirteen 
issued a famous proclamation called [0.5] 
the proclamation of war to the death [0.5] in which he declared in Venezuela [0.
3] that [0.3] all Spaniards who did not [0.3] explicitly embrace the cause of 
independence [0.3] would be killed [0.3] by his forces [0.2] however all 
Americans even those who rejected independence and supported the Spanish crown 
[0.5] would be spared by virtue [0.2] of being [0.4] not Spanish [1.1] as he 
put it [0.3] the single title Americans [0.2] shall be your safeguard and 
guarantee [0.7] o-, our arms have come to protect you [0.2] and they shall 
never be raised [0.4] against a single one of you [0.7] or your brothers [0.9] 
in other words he's here in this very early [0.2] phase of the move towards 
nationalism in eighteen-thirteen [0.7] suggesting [0.3] that there is some kind 
of [0.8] national identity created in opposition to the Spanish the Americans 
[0.4] are the people who aren't Spanish [1.0] so in other words [0.4] the 
leaders of independence deliberately played on [0.4] the differences [0.4] the 
often [0.4] not [0.2] entirely obvious differences between [0.3] the Spanish 
and the Americans between [0.5] the Spanish 
and the Indians [0.4] between [0.3] the Spanish and the Creoles [0.8] as [0.3] 
part of an attempt to [0.3] create some sense [0.3] of distinct identity [0.3] 
er in c-, in in the sense of not being Spanish and thus [0.5] the advocates of 
independence played very deliberately [0.4] on [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 [0.3] for example [0.3] fits in [0.8] and they 
sought to distance themselves from all things [0.3] Spanish [0.6] so [0.3] in 
other words the re-, attempt was made [0.2] to convince the inhabitants of the 
Americas [0.8] that [0.3] they were united in not being Spanish [0.3] that not 
being Spanish became the organizing principle around which these these new 
states were [0.6] er were s-, were shaped during this early period [1.2] now [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 [0.3] to do [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 [0.5] of what i said [0.7] in 
this lecture [1.2] i i mentioned at the very beginning a number of things [0.2] 
that didn't change [0.3] in the [0.6] immediate aftermath of independence i 
talked about the [0.7] fiscal and economic continuity [0.5] of [0.5] the period 
after independence however i then went on to remind you and to [0.4] er [0.4] 
alert you to the [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 [0.6] er [0.2] some kind of new [0.3] sense of these new republics 
[0.4] the period after the wars of independence [0.4] may be defined i think [0.
4] as a period [0.3] during which these new states these new republics sought 
to [1.0] present themselves to define themselves to create themselves as 
nations [0.5] after three centuries of [0.5] colonialism the new [0.3] Spanish 
American republics [0.3] had to create [0.2] new identities for themselves [0.
4] as republics to use this nice phrase of Benedict Anderson who i mentioned a 
moment ago [0.5] er this was a time [0.2] during which the political leaders [0.
7] of these new republics urged Americans [0.3] to create 
imagined communities that's a phrase [0.5] er that Benedict Anderson has used 
imagined communities to try to describe [0.7] the process that i've been 
talking about to to try to descr-, describe [0.6] the [0.6] way in which 
nationalism isn't simply [0.4] something founded in [0.4] language or geography 
it's founded in a sense of [0.9] shared community which was something that 
these leaders had to [0.2] create they had to [0.7] er [0.5] build up [0.3] out 
of [1.2] a lack out of an absence of such sense [1.0] now i've talked today a 
little bit about the attributes of nationalism i s-, talked about the way in 
which [0.6] leaders tried to create a sense of national identity what we're 
going to look at [0.2] for m-, [0.4] and one might almost argue for the 
remainder of this year [0.5] through all of next term we might argue [0.3] is 
[0.3] the failure [0.2] of that early [0.3] national project and the way in 
which [0.8] politicians and [0.2] inhabitants and citizens of these regions 
tried [0.9] for throughout the rest of the nineteenth century and well into the 
twentieth century to [0.6] shape a nation [1.2] that [0.6] really reflected 
its inhabitants that embraced [0.4] the [0.3] actual inhabitants of the region 
and the way in which [1.1] politicians [0.6] er [0.9] proved unable [0.7] to [0.
8] make their imagined nation [0.6] coincide [0.4] with the real nation [0.4] 
was something that we'll look at [0.3] for the remainder of the year [0.2] 
that's going to be the project i think [0.2] for the rest [1.0] of the year [0.
6] now i want to stop my lecture there [0.4] but i don't want you [0.2] to go 
away yet [0.5] for about ten more minutes because [0.4] it is the time of year 
[0.6] when one does course evaluation forms [0.9] and i would be very grateful 
[0.3] if you guys could do [0.6] a course evaluation form [0.6] for this course 
[1.8] now i want to say a word about that there's been a new [0.7] policy 
introduced in the History department i think it's a good policy [0.6] on course 
evaluation forms and this is [0.4] to encourage you to [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 [0.5] and i don't think anybody ever does [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 [0.6] that [0.5] i make 
a digest [0.4] of the principal points needing attention that are raised in 
these forms [0.7] i will do that as soon as you've completed them [0.3] and i 
will give this for-, this [1.0] digest [0.4] back to you at the beginning of 
next term [0.5] with [0.5] the c-, your points the things you think you need 
attention and my suggested responses to them [0.3] so then you can then [0.8] 
respond to those [0.4] so i want to make it very clear [0.3] that this we 
really do pay attention to these and we we [0.7] are always interested in your 
comments i certainly am [0.5] at least [0.3] i also would be particularly 
interested in having comments from those of you who are in the so-called large 
group [0.6] 
the seminar group that er [0.4] has about fifteen people in it [0.6] that meets 
on [0.4] Thursday mornings from whenever it is eleven [1.0] i think is when it 
meets from eleven-thirty [0.4] so [0.2] if you have any particular comments 
about your feelings about being in this large group [1.4] i particularly 
encourage you to write them down but we we indeed encourage all comments so 
here without further ado [1.0] are the forms [10.6] now [0.3] what i think i'm 
going to do rather than just hover here while you complete them [0.5] what i 
would ask you to do is when you've written [0.3] whatever you would like to 
write [0.4] can you leave them say on this desk [0.9] and i will come back and 
collect them at three okay [1.2] all right [0.8] thank you very much