Latin American Revolutions: Crash Course World History #31

Crash Course poster #1 of 3: http://dft.ba/-ccposter1

In which John Green talks about the many revolutions of Latin America in the 19th century. At the beginning of the 1800s, Latin America was firmly under the control of Spain and Portugal. The revolutionary zeal that had recently created the United States and had taken off Louis XVI's head in France arrived in South America, and a racially diverse group of people who felt more South American than European took over. John covers the soft revolution of Brazil, in which Prince Pedro boldly seized power from his father, but promised to give it back if King João ever returned to Brazil. He also covers the decidedly more violent revolutions in Mexico, Venezuela, and Argentina. Watch the video to see Simón Bolívar's dream of a United South America crushed, even as he manages to liberate a bunch of countries and get two currencies and about a thousand schools and parks named after him.

Follow us!
@thecrashcourse
@realjohngreen
@raoulmeyer
@crashcoursestan
@saysdanica
@thoughtbubbler


Like us! 
‪http://www.facebook.com/youtubecrashcourse
Follow us again! 
‪http://thecrashcourse.tumblr.com

Hi, I’m John Green,
this is Crash Course World History,

and today things are going
to get a little bit confusing,

because we’re going to talk about
revolution and independence

in Latin America.

It’s a bit confusing because
1: Latin America is big,

2: It’s very diverse,
3: Napoleon makes everything complicated,

and 4: As we’ve seen in the past,
sometimes revolutions turn out

not to be that revolutionary.

Witness, for instance,
the New England Revolution,

who instead of trying to form new
and better governments,

are always just kicking balls around
like all the other soccer teams.

[♪ Intro music ♪]

Right, so before independence,
Latin American society was characterized

by three institutions
that exercised control

over the population.

The first was the Spanish Crown,
or if you are Brazilian,

the Portuguese crown.

So, as far as Spain was concerned,
the job of the colonies was

to produce revenue
in the form of a 20% tax on everything

that was called “the royal fifth.”

So government administration was
pervasive and relatively efficient

because it had to be
in order to collect its royal fifth.

Then there was the Catholic Church.

Even more than royal officials,
the church exercised influence

over people's everyday lives.

I mean,
the church even controlled time.

The church bells
tolled out the hours

and they mandated
a seven day work week

so that people could go
to church on Sunday.

And finally,
there was patriarchy.

In Latin America,
like much of the world,

husbands had complete control
over their wives;

and any extra,
or-pre-marital skoodilypooping

was severely punished.

I mean, when it was the women
doing the illicit skoodilypooping.

Men could basically
get up to whatever.

This was mainly about property rights
because illegitimate children

could inherit their father’s property,
but it was constructed to be about,

you know, purity.

To get a sense of how patriarchy
shaped Latin American lives,

take a gander at
Sor Juana Ines de la Cruz,

whose name I’m actually abbreviating.

A child prodigy who spoke five
languages by the age of 16,

de la Cruz wanted to disguise herself
as a boy

so she could attend University,
but she was forbidden to do so.

Still, she wrote plays and poetry,
she studied math and natural science.

And for being one of the leading minds
of the 17th century,

she was widely attacked,
and eventually forced

to abandon her work
and sell all 4,000 of her books.

That’s a shame because
she had a great mind,

once writing that:

“Aristotle would have written more
if he had done any cooking.”

Couple other things.

First, Latin America led the world
in transculturation,

or Cultural Blending.

A new and distinct Latin American
culture emerged mixing,

1: Whites from Spain
called Peninsulares,

2: Whites born in the Americas
called Creoles,

3: Native Americans,
and 4: African slaves.

This blending of cultures
may be most obvious

when looking at Native American
and African influences on Christianity.

The Virgin of Guadalupe, for instance,
was still called Tonantzin

the indigenous earth goddess,
by Indians;

and the profusion of blood
in Mexican iconography

recalls the Aztec use
of blood in ritual.

But transculturation pervaded
Latin American life,

from food, to secular music,
to fashion.

Somewhat related,
Latin America had a great deal

of racial diversity
and a rigid social hierarchy to match.

There were four basic
racial categories:

white, black, mestizo:
a mix of white and American Indian,

and mulatto:
a mix of white and black.

We try not to use that word anymore
because it’s offensive,

but that’s the word they used.

And from the 16th century on,
Latin America had a huge diversity

of mixed race people;
and there were constant attempts

to classify them
and divide them into castes.

You can see some of these
in so called 'casta paintings',

which attempted to establish
in a very weird

and Enlightenment-y way
all the possible racial combinations.

But of course
that’s not how race works,

as evidenced by the fact
that successful people

of lower racial castes
could become “legally white”

by being granted gracias al sacar.

So by 1800,
on the eve of Latin America’s

independence movements,
roughly a quarter of people

were mixed race.

Alright, now let's have us
some revolutions.

How should we organize this Stan?

Let's begin with Latin America's
most successful country

as defined by quality
of soccer team.

So Brazil, he said as thousands
of Argentinians booed him,

is obviously different
because it was ruled,

not by Spain,
but by Portugal.

But like a lot of revolutions
in Latin America,

it was fairly conservative.

The creoles wanted to
maintain their privilege

while also achieving independence
from the Peninsulares.

And also like a lot of
Latin American revolutions,

it featured Napoleon.

Freaking Napoleon,
you’re everywhere.

He’s behind me, isn’t he?
[Noise of exasperation]

So when Napoleon
took over Portugal in 1807,

the entire Portuguese royal family
and their royal court

decamped to Brazil.

And it turned out,
they loved Brazil.

King Joao loved Brazil so much.

Off topic, but do you think
that J-Woww named herself

after King Joao?

I mean, does she have
that kind of historical sensibility?

I think she does.

So King Joao’s life in Rio
was so good

that even after Napoleon was defeated
at the Battle of Waterloo,

he just kind of stayed in Brazil.

And then, by 1820,
the Portuguese in Portugal were like,

“Hey, maybe you should come back
and, like, you know,

govern us,
King of Portugal.”

So in 1821,
he reluctantly returned to Lisbon,

leaving his son,
Prince Pedro, behind.

Meanwhile, Brazilian Creoles
were organizing themselves

around the idea that
they were culturally different

from Portugal.

And they eventually
formed a Brazilian Party—

no, Stan, not that kind of party,
come on.

Yes, that kind.

A Brazilian party to lobby
for independence.

Then in 1822,
they convinced Prince Pedro

of boring, old Portugal
that he should just become

King Pedro of sexy, big Brazil.

So Pedro declared Brazil
an independent constitutional monarchy

with himself as king.

As a result,
Brazil achieved independence

without much bloodshed;
and managed to hold on

to that social hierarchy
with the plantation owners on top.

And that explains why Brazil was
the last new world country

to abolish slavery,
not fully abandoning it until 1888.

Right so, even when Napoleon
wasn’t forcing Portuguese royals

into an awesome exile,
he was still messing

with Latin America.

Let’s go to the Thought Bubble.

So Latin America’s
independence movements

began not with Brazil,
but in Mexico,

when Napoleon put his brother
on the Spanish throne in 1808.

Napoleon wanted to institute
the liberal principles

of the French Revolution,
which angered the ruling elite

of the Peninsulares
in what was then called New Spain.

They were aristocrats
and they just wanted to go back

to some good, old-fashioned,
divine-right monarchy

with a strong church.

So the Mexican Creoles,
seeking to expand their own power

at the expense of the Peninsular elite,
saw an opportunity here.

They affirmed their loyalty
to the new king,

who was French even though
he was the king of Spain.

I told you this was complicated.

Then, a massive peasant
uprising began,

led by a renegade priest
Padre Hidalgo,

and supported by the Creoles
because it was aimed

at the Peninsulares;
even though they weren’t

actually the ones
who supported Spain.

This was further complicated
by the fact that

to the Mestizo peasants
led by Hidalgo,

Creoles and Peninsulares looked
and acted basically identical.

They were both white
and imperious.

So the peasants often attacked
the Creoles, who were,

technically on their side
in trying to overthrow

the ruling Peninsulares.

Even though it had
tens of thousands of supporters,

this first peasant uprising
petered out.

But, a second peasant revolt,
led by another priest,

Father Morelos,
was much more revolutionary.

In 1813,
he declared independence

and the revolt lasted
until his death in 1815.

But since he was a Mestizo,
he didn’t gain much Creole support.

So revolutionary fervor
in Mexico began to fade until...1820,

when Spain, which was now
under the rule of a Spanish,

rather than a French king;
had a REAL liberal revolution

with a new constitution
that limited the power

of the church.

Thanks, Thought Bubble.

So, in the wake
of Spain’s liberalizing movements,

the Mexican elites,
who had previously supported Spain,

switched sides
and made common cause

with the Creoles in the hopes
that they could somehow

hold onto their privileges.

And pushing for independence together,
things went very well.

The Creole general Iturbide,
and the rebel Mestizo commander Guerrero

joined forces
and won independence

with most of the Peninsulares
returning to Spain.

Iturbide, the whiter
of the two generals,

became king of Mexico in 1822.

Remember,
this was a revolution

essentially AGAINST
representative government.

But that didn’t work out;
and within a year,

he was overthrown by the military
and a republic was declared.

Popular sovereignty was
sort of victorious,

but without much benefit
to the peasants

who actually made
independence possible.

This alliance between
conservative landowning elites,

and the army,
especially in the face of

calls for land reform,
or economic justice—

would happen over and over again
in Latin America

for the next century and a half.

But before we come
to any conclusions,

let’s discuss one last revolution.

So Venezuela had a codray
of well trained Creole revolutionaries;

who by 1811,
had formed a revolutionary quonta

that seized power in Caracas,
and formed a republic.

But, the interior of Venezuela
was home to mixed-race cowboys

called llaneros,
who supported the king.

They kept the Caracas revolutionaries
from extending their power inland.

And that is where Simon Bolivar,
“el Libertador,”

enters the picture.

Bolivar realized that the only way
to overcome the various class divisions,

like the one between
the Caracas creoles and llaneros,

was to appeal to a common sense
of South American-ness.

I mean, after all,
the one thing that almost all

South Americans had in common:
they were born in South America,

NOT SPAIN.

So then,
partly through shows of toughness

that included, like,
crossing flooded plains,

and going without sleep;
Bolivar convinced the llaneros

to give up fighting for Spain
and start fighting against them.

He quickly captured the
viceregal capital at Bogota,

and by 1822 his forces
had taken Caracas and Quito.

Hold on, hold on.

Lest I be attacked
by Argentinians

who are already upset
about what I said

about their really good soccer team,
I want to make one thing clear.

Argentina’s general,
Jose de San Martin,

was also vital to the
defeat of the Spanish.

He led an expeditions against
the Spanish in Chile,

and also a really important one
in Lima.

And then, in December of 1824,
at the battle of Ayacucho,

the last Spanish viceroy
was finally captured

and all of Latin America
was free from Spain.

Oh, it’s time for the open letter?

That’s A chair, Stan,
but it’s not THE chair.

An Open Letter to Simon Bolivar.

But first, let’s see what’s in
the secret compartment today.

Oh, llanero.

I wonder if his hips swivel
when I wind him up.

Context is everything.

They do!

Hey there, cowboy.

Dear Simon Bolivar,

First,
you had fantastic muttonchops.

It’s as if you’re some kind of
handsome Martin Van Buren.

You were a man
of immense accomplishments,

but those accomplishments
have been richly rewarded.

I mean, you have a country
named after you.

Not to mention,
two different currencies.

But for my purposes,
the most important thing you ever did,

was die.

You may not know this,
Simon Bolivar,

but when I'm not a world history teacher
sitting next to a fake fireplace,

I am a novelist.

And your last words,

“Damn it, how will I ever
get out of this labyrinth,”

feature prominently in my first novel,
Looking for Alaska.

Except it turns out,
those weren’t your last words.

Your last words were probably,
“Jose, bring the luggage.”

But I decided to use your fancy,
romantic, inaccurate last words.

It’s called artistic license.

Put that in your luggage.

Anyway, fantastic life.

I just wish you’d nailed it a little
bit better with your last words.

Best wishes,
John Green

So by 1825,
almost the entire western hemisphere,

with a few exceptions
in the Caribbean,

was free from European rule.

Oh, right,
and Canada.

I’m just kidding, Canadians.

It’s so easy to make fun of you
because you’re so nice.

So I tease you,
and then you’re like,

“Aw, thanks for noticing
that we exist.”

My pleasure.

Anyway,
this is pretty remarkable,

especially when you consider
that most of this territory

had been under Spanish
or Portuguese control

for almost 300 years.

The most revolutionary thing about
these independence movements

were that they enshrined
the idea of so called popular sovereignty

in the New World.

Never again would Latin America
be under the permanent control

of a European power,
and the relatively quick division

of Latin America
into individual states,

despite Bolivar’s pan
South American dream;

showed how quickly the people
in these regions developed

a sense of themselves as
nations distinct from Europe,

and from each other.

This division into nation states
prefigures what would happen

to Europe in the mid-19th century.

And in that sense,
Latin America is the leader

of 19th century world history.

And Latin American history presages
another key theme in modern life:

multiculturalism.

And all of that makes Latin America
sound very modern,

but in a number of ways,
Latin American independence

wasn’t terribly revolutionary.

First,
while the Peninsulares were gone,

the rigid social hierarchy,
with the wealthy Creoles at the top,

remained.

Second, whereas revolutions
in both France and America

weakened the power
of the established church;

in Latin America,
the Catholic Church remained

very powerful
in people’s everyday lives.

And then,
there is the patriarchy.

Although there were many women
who took up arms

in the struggle for independence,
including Juana Azurduy;

who led a cavalry charge
against Spanish forces in Bolivia,

patriarchy remained strong
in Latin America.

Feminist ideas,
like those of Mary Wollstonecraft,

would have to wait.

Women weren’t allowed to vote
in national elections

in Mexico until 1953.

And Peru didn’t extend voting rights
to women until 1955.

Also, Latin America’s revolutionary wars
were long and bloody.

425,000 people died in Mexico’s
war for independence.

And they didn’t always lead
to stability.

Venezuela, for instance,
experienced war

for much of the 19th century,
leading to as many as a million deaths.

And it’s important to note that
fighting for freedom,

doesn’t always lead to freedom.

The past two centuries
in Latin America

have seen many military dictatorships
that protect private property

at the expense
of egalitarian governance.

“Freedom,” “independence,”
and “autonomy”,

are complicated terms
that mean different things

to different people
at different times.

So, too, with the word,
“revolutionary.”

Thanks for watching.

I’ll see you next week.

Location change because
I forgot to record the credits,

and my shirt matches the wall.

Probably should have thought
about that one a little bit harder.

Crash Course is produced
and directed by Stan Muller.

Our script supervisor is
Danica Johnson,

the show is ably interned
by Agent Meredith Danko,

and it’s written by
my high school history teacher,

Raoul Meyer and myself.

Our graphics team
is Thought Bubble.

Last week’s phrase of the week was,
"giant squid of anger."

If you want to suggest
a future phrase of the week,

or guess at this week’s,
you can do so in comments;

where you can also ask questions
that will be answered

by our team of historians.

Look at the beautiful
Crash Course poster!

Available now at DFTBA.com,
link in the video description.

Thanks for watching,
and as we say in my home town,

"Don’t forget to be awesome!"