Is it part of the problem WHEN Latin América got independence?

Jul 2017
335
Argentina
I wanted to start this thread, to resume an earlier one started by RomanianBoy and that was closed by a stupid semantic derivation.
RomanianBoy wondered whether latin american countries gained their independence too early, before the population was culturally prepared for it. He emphasized that much of the population was illiterate and perhaps not really interested in who ruled; that the only ones interested in independence were the members of an elite. Some responded by pointing out that this is not relevant, given that illiteracy was perhaps not greater than that of the british colonies that became independent, or that of the population in the same european countries. Unfortunately the discussion led to what is "Latin America", and got closed by the moderator. Let us take the thickest and simplest part of the concept: the majority and almost exclusive use as the mother tongue of some derivative of Latin. Let us safeguard the use also as the mother tongue of the languages ​​of the native american peoples. Let’s take the most practical of the concept: everything from Mexico to the south, except some areas of the Caribbean and Malvinas.
To answer the question, I consider very transcendent to speak of the Jesuits. Although their “missions” were basically ethnocentric (considering their own culture superior to that of the native peoples of the Americas), it is also true that they spread throughout the Americas the knowledge of the sciences, trades (as professions) and industries. In Córdoba-Argentina, is still the printing machines that they used. The missions sought to integrate indigenous peoples into an economically sustainable society. On the contrary, the mita, encomienda, yanaconazgo and others, were basically forms of slavery.
The Jesuits were expelled from America a couple of decades before the independence of nations.
I think the independence did not arrive very early, on the contrary, it came very late. If, instead of independence having taken place since 1810, it had occurred since 1760, to suppose, the new American nations would have received a legacy with more jesuit content and less content of the corrupt spanish colonial bureaucracy.
One more thing. I’m not catholic, not even christian, or any other religion.
.......................................
Quise iniciar esta discusión o propuesta, para retomar una anterior iniciada por RomanianBoy y que fue cerrada por una estúpida derivación semántica.
Se preguntaba RomanianBoy si los países de América Latina obtuvieron su independencia demasiado temprano, antes de que la población estuviera culturalmente preparada para ello. Él puso énfasis en que gran parte de la población era analfabeta y quizás no le interesaba realmente quién gobernaba; que los únicos interesados en la independencia eran los miembros de una elite. Algunos contestaron destacando que eso no es relevante, dado que el analfabetismo quizás no era mayor que el de las colonias británicas que se independizaron, o el propio de la población en los mismos países europeos. Lamentablemente la discusión derivó en qué es “América Latina”. Tomemos lo más grueso y sencillo del concepto: el uso mayoritario y casi exclusivo como lengua materna de alguna derivada del latín. Dejemos a salvo el uso también como lengua materna, de las lenguas de los pueblos originarios americanos. Tomemos lo más práctico del concepto: todo lo que hay de México hacia el sur, excepto algunas zonas del caribe y Malvinas.
Para contestar la pregunta, considero muy trascendente hablar de los jesuitas. Si bien sus “misiones” eran básicamente etnocéntricas -considrando su propia cultura superior a la de los pueblos originarios de las Américas-, también es cierto que difundieron en toda América el conocimiento de las ciencias, de los oficios y las industrias. En Córdoba-Argentina, todavía están las máquinas de imprenta que ellos utilizaron. Las misiones intentaban integrar a los pueblos originarios en una sociedad económicamente sustentable. Por el contrario, la mita, la encomienda, el yanaconazgo y otras, eran básicamente formas de esclavitud.
Los jesuitas fueron expulsados de América un par de décadas antes de la independencia de las naciones.
Creo que la independencia no llegó muy temprano, por el contrario, llegó muy tarde. Si, en lugar de producirse la independencia desde 1810, se hubiera producido desde 1860, por ejemplo, las nuevas naciones americanas hubieran recibido un legado con mayor contenido jesuita y menor contenido de la corrupta burocracia colonial española.
Aclaración: no soy católico, ni cristiano ni nada de religión.
 

Tairusiano

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,976
Brazil
Good point I personally believe that independence come late, if we are talking about literance the colonial powers had since 1500 to literate the people. like you said in reality most knowledge centers in the continent were religious and not a State policy, for example in Brazil until 1808 press and printing of books was prohibited, by Portugal.
Some people think that the colonial powers had the objetive of bringing civilization or a greater good, in reality it was only a economic enterprise.
 
Last edited:

mark87

Ad Honorem
Jan 2014
2,092
Santiago de Chile
I don't think that independence came too soon but I also don't think it came too late (there were only two other independent nations in the hemisphere when the independence movement started in 1810, the United States and Haiti). The timing of independence for me isn't a very important factor, Ethiopia has been independent for quite a while and they are not doing much better than any Latin american nation, while Canada became independent at least a century after the Latin american nations and is as a society considerably farther along in human development.
For me personally the biggest problem in Latin America is a cultural problem regarding why it lags other areas of the world in human development and having more solid public institutions and legal framework that allows social and economic progress. I also suspect a lot of our woes might be placed squarely on the elite's who have done an enormous job of mismanaging Latin america since it's inception. That at least would be the case in my country, it's hard to develop anything when the elite's disdain the very concept of hard work and seem content with just selling cheap extraction goods and commodities.
 
Nov 2013
1,077
Olisipo
Good point I personally believe that independence come late, if we are talking about literance the colonial powers had since 1500 to literate the people. like you said in reality most knowledge centers in the continent were religious and not a State policy, for example in Brazil until 1808 press and printing of books was prohibited, by Portugal.
Some people think that the colonial powers had the objetive of bringing civilization or a greater good, in reality it was only a economic enterprise.
Yes you are right in saying that the main purpose of colonization was just an economic enterprise, not some sort of effort to civilize or bring welfare to the native population, but you can apply a similar reasoning to the independence movements. In most if not all cases (except slave revolts in the caribbbean islands) in the South and North Americas they weren't altruistic movements to defend the rights or save the native indigineous populations, but instead mostly european descendent elites that wanted to break free of their former empires so they could go about their business and make a living and money without taxes from the motherland.
 

Tairusiano

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,976
Brazil
Yes you are right in saying that the main purpose of colonization was just an economic enterprise, not some sort of effort to civilize or bring welfare to the native population, but you can apply a similar reasoning to the independence movements. In most if not all cases (except slave revolts in the caribbbean islands) in the South and North Americas they weren't altruistic movements to defend the rights or save the native indigineous populations, but instead mostly european descendent elites that wanted to break free of their former empires so they could go about their business and make a living and money without taxes from the motherland.
I dont dispute that,although I did not say that independence was a utopian movement I dont believe on that, and history shows every day that people in this side of the atlantic or in the other, follows his own interests, but the thread started with the premise that independence came to early and the empires didnt had more time to bring enlightenment to the colonies.
My point is that it was not the objective of the colonial enterprises, and even if it were they had nearly 300 years to do so, becoming independent late would mean nothing because it was about money and not making the colonies better, and I'm not saying it was bad, just pointing out the differences.
 
Last edited:

Tulius

Ad Honorem
May 2016
5,971
Portugal
Interesting posts here that lead us to the question: Is there an optimum moment for independence?

Usually colonial powers don’t tend to care for their colonial subjects, so, under this perspective, in theory, they are better independent. Probably some exceptions will be seen, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, with the change of paradigm, in some colonies that escaped to the huge independence movements.
 

Tairusiano

Ad Honorem
Jun 2012
2,976
Brazil
Interesting posts here that lead us to the question: Is there an optimum moment for independence?

Usually colonial powers don’t tend to care for their colonial subjects, so, under this perspective, in theory, they are better independent. Probably some exceptions will be seen, especially in the 20th and 21st centuries, with the change of paradigm, in some colonies that escaped to the huge independence movements.
That is a good point,
The easy answer when the Colonial power is weak:lol:

Now on a serious note it is hard, to find a optimum moment to independence,
but a thing that is not talked is, because they have a outside view and are trying to balance the rule, colonial powers normally are much more pragmatic and dinamic, than the local colony elites with normally are only preocupied with what happens inside their own plantations.
 

Jake10

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
11,960
Canada
I agree that independence did not come too soon. An earlier independence could have meant less gold and wealth having left the countries. Such wealth could have been used to educate the people and benefit the Latin American economies.
 
Jul 2017
335
Argentina
Hey Jake.

I was puting atention on the greater jesuit and lower Borbones legacy that latin american nations would have reciebed by geting independence some decades earlier.
You give more importance to the greater amount of gold. In the case of the Provincias Unidas del Sud (Argentina) that gold would have probably get used for internal wars.
 

Jake10

Ad Honoris
Oct 2010
11,960
Canada
Hey Jake.

I was puting atention on the greater jesuit and lower Borbones legacy that latin american nations would have reciebed by geting independence some decades earlier.
You give more importance to the greater amount of gold. In the case of the Provincias Unidas del Sud (Argentina) that gold would have probably get used for internal wars.
The gold may or may not have been used for internal wars; there's no sure way of knowing that. What we can say for sure is that if it wasn't there it could not have been used for anything, so the possibility of any benefit from it was gone. To say that, however, is like saying to a person that it's better to take their money because they're probably going to misuse it.

Independence has challenges, no question about it, but nations can learn from those challenges. A colony can benefit from the support from a stronger nation only to the point that the stronger nation seeks to build the colony up. In the case of Latin America, clearly the goal was to extract wealth from there, so independence was the way to go.