For those interested in Latin America

[EastOfEden]

I just finished a book by Maria Arana that explores characteristics of South and Central american countries over a span of hundreds of years up to the present day. She divides her discussion into three segments. 1. "Silver" or the significance of mining and the lust for what those mines produce and how it resulted in the slaughter of millions of indigenous people, both before and after the Spanish invasions of Cortes and those who followed; 2. "Sword" or the use of force to impose rules upon the bulk of society by those who had the military might to do so, and the willingness and even eagerness to kill entire tribal nations to impose that rule; and 3. "Stone," by which she means religion in its many aspects from worship of rocks and mountains to worship of images like the cross or elements of nature like the sun or the moon, and even the deification of individuals, be they rulers of the Incas or the legendarized hero Che Guevera or the leader of the Shining Path, Abimael Guzman.

Told from primarily a Spanish/Latin American perspective, not a more generalized European or U.S. perspective, it is a good compliment to the iconic book by Hemming The Conquest of The Incas since it explains as well as describes some of the history and covers many countries, not just Peru and Ecuador.

If you feel your education is not complete without a basic understanding of the some of the currents of South and Central America, this book is a good place to start.

 

[Blue Howl]

Just curious....Does the book offer any commentary or analysis on why the America regions colonized by the British have been far more successful than the America regions colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese?

 

[EastOfEden]

No. Its focus primarily is on the Spanish populated countries in Latin America. Its not about the hemisphere. Not much on Brazil, for example, and only a little bit on Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

But even with those exclusions, that's a lot of the hemisphere.

And I'm not sure how she might define success. Certainly part of her interest is the indigenous people. So I would assume that if she looked at the U.S. with the same camera, while it would be different since settlers didn't come looking for gold, nor under the patronage and direction of the foreign kings, nor with one religion, she would write in a way that would suggest the indigenous population was treated poorly. It's a different animal --North America doesn't seem to have had civilizations as significant or advanced as the Incas or Mayans or Aztecs.

 

[Blue Howl]

No. Its focus primarily is on the Spanish populated countries in Latin America. Its not about the hemisphere. Not much on Brazil, for example, and only a little bit on Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

But even with those exclusions, that's a lot of the hemisphere.

And I'm not sure how she might define success. Certainly part of her interest is the indigenous people. So I would assume that if she looked at the U.S. with the same camera, while it would be different since settlers didn't come looking for gold, nor under the patronage and direction of the foreign kings, nor with one religion, she would write in a way that would suggest the indigenous population was treated poorly. It's a different animal --North America doesn't seem to have had civilizations as significant or advanced as the Incas or Mayans or Aztecs.

There is no debating that. But the indigenous populations were treated even worse in some areas of South America by the Spanish colonizers.

But I know this is getting off track from your original intent of this thread. I appreciate the heads-up about the book.

 

[NUinID]

Just curious....Does the book offer any commentary or analysis on why the America regions colonized by the British have been far more successful than the America regions colonized by the Spanish and Portuguese?

It is a pretty simplistic view on my part, but to me the big difference is in North America the mostly British colonist came to colonize. To make a better life. To get a piece of the "American Dream" for lack of a better term.

The Spanish and Portuguese wanted to conquer and extract riches from the continent. They wanted to take their wealth back to Iberian Peninsula and show everyone what they did. Your everyday common Spaniard wasn't immigrating to Central and S. America with his wife to hack out a life out of the land.

 

[KleinTxHusker]

No. Its focus primarily is on the Spanish populated countries in Latin America. Its not about the hemisphere. Not much on Brazil, for example, and only a little bit on Argentina, Uruguay and Paraguay.

But even with those exclusions, that's a lot of the hemisphere.

And I'm not sure how she might define success. Certainly part of her interest is the indigenous people. So I would assume that if she looked at the U.S. with the same camera, while it would be different since settlers didn't come looking for gold, nor under the patronage and direction of the foreign kings, nor with one religion, she would write in a way that would suggest the indigenous population was treated poorly. It's a different animal --North America doesn't seem to have had civilizations as significant or advanced as the Incas or Mayans or Aztecs.

Interesting... so Mexico City, the Yucatan & the Honduras (Belize used to be British Honduras) are not part of North America? I guess I just learned something new, my teachers didn't know what they were talking about.

Just couldn't let this pass. In the energy industry "North America" is US & Canada and analysts tend to put Mexico in with Latin America (as they also do with Central America & the Caribbean). But there is always the question and explanation that "yes, we know that Mexico is part of North America but from an analytical standpoint..."

The degree on integration in Oil, Natural Gas and Electricity is fairly high between the US and Canada. And while there is a very large energy trade between US & Mexico, it isn't as well integrated (trade tends to be one way in certain commodities) because energy was left out of Free Trade Agreements due to the politics of energy in Mexico. AMLO has been trying to shake things up but seems to be calming down. A US Hispanic who had been in Mexico City working as an energy consultant for one of the ministries compared to AMLO with a certain other North American leader...

 

[EastOfEden]

I always lumped the countries as North, South and Central America, with the U.S. and Canada the North,, Mexico and the countries occupying the land south of Mexico to Columbia and Ecuador being the Central, and the large land mass from Columbia and Ecuador south being South. That's a personal bias obtained over the years in different ways. But our friends on the Internet include Mexico as part of North America (along with such places as Bermuda and Greenland and a total of 23 separate countries).

Whatever their designation, Mexico culturally, linguistically and historically have been more in tune with the countries further south in the hemisphere. The author spends some time discussing Mexico in her book. Her interest historically primarily begins with civilizations in Mexico and the greater nation of Peru in the time of the Mayans, Aztecs and Incas. She limits her discussion primarily to countries in which Spanish is the popular language.

 

[Rainbow Dash]

I took a 400-level Latin American history class in college and became hooked. I love the history and culture of the entire region. I will have to check this book out.

If anyone ever gets to Mexico City, take time to travel to Chapultepec Castle. It’s a hike but it offers a breathtaking view of the city. Also, spend the money to get a tour guide, you will get such a deeper understanding of Mexican history.

I was there last October and snapped a few pics. I will share some later if I get time.

 

[EastOfEden]

You are probably one of the few on this site to have read Hemming's Conquest of the Incas. That was an eye opener book for me.