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