essay about latin american independence

Causes of the Latin American Revolution

• History Before Columbus
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Caribbean History
• Central American History
• South American History
• Mexican History
• American History
• African American History
• African History
• Ancient History and Culture
• Asian History
• European History
• Medieval & Renaissance History
• Military History
• The 20th Century
• Women's History
• Ph.D., Spanish, Ohio State University
• M.A., Spanish, University of Montana
• B.A., Spanish, Penn State University

As late as 1808, Spain's New World Empire stretched from parts of the present-day western U.S. to Tierra del Fuego in South America, from the Caribbean Sea to the Pacific Ocean. By 1825, it was all gone, except for a handful of islands in the Caribbean—broken into several independent states. How could Spain's New World Empire fall apart so quickly and completely? The answer is long and complicated, but here are some of the essential causes of the Latin American Revolution.

Lack of Respect for the Creoles

By the late eighteenth century, the Spanish colonies had a thriving class of Creoles (Criollo in Spanish), wealthy men and women of European ancestry born in the New World. The revolutionary hero Simon Bolivar is a good example, as he was born in Caracas to a well-to-do Creole family that had lived in Venezuela for four generations, but as a rule, did not intermarry with the locals.

Spain discriminated against the Creoles, appointing mostly new Spanish immigrants to important positions in the colonial administration. In the audiencia (court) of Caracas, for example, no native Venezuelans were appointed from 1786 to 1810. During that time, ten Spaniards and four Creoles from other areas did serve. This irritated the influential Creoles who correctly felt that they were being ignored.

No Free Trade

The vast Spanish New World Empire produced many goods, including coffee, cacao, textiles, wine, minerals, and more. But the colonies were only allowed to trade with Spain, and at rates advantageous for Spanish merchants. Many Latin Americans began selling their goods illegally to the British colonies and, after 1783, U.S. merchants. By the late 18th century, Spain was forced to loosen some trade restrictions, but the move was too little, too late, as those who produced these goods now demanded a fair price for them.

Other Revolutions

By 1810, Spanish America could look to other nations to see revolutions and their results. Some were a positive influence: The American Revolution (1765–1783) was seen by many in South America as a good example of elite leaders of colonies throwing off European rule and replacing it with a more fair and democratic society—later, some constitutions of new republics borrowed heavily from the U.S. Constitution. Other revolutions were not as positive. The Haitian Revolution, a bloody but successful uprising of enslaved people against their French colonial enslavers (1791–1804), terrified landowners in the Caribbean and northern South America, and as the situation worsened in Spain, many feared that Spain could not protect them from a similar uprising.

A Weakened Spain

In 1788, Charles III of Spain, a competent ruler, died, and his son Charles IV took over. Charles IV was weak and indecisive and mostly occupied himself with hunting, allowing his ministers to run the Empire. As an ally of Napoleon's First French Empire, Spain willingly joined with Napoleonic France and began fighting the British. With a weak ruler and the Spanish military tied up, Spain's presence in the New World decreased markedly and the Creoles felt more ignored than ever.

After Spanish and French naval forces were crushed at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, Spain's ability to control the colonies lessened even more. When Great Britain attacked Buenos Aires in 1806–1807, Spain could not defend the city and a local militia had to suffice.

American Identities

There was a growing sense in the colonies of being separate from Spain. These differences were cultural and often a source of great pride among Creole families and regions. By the end of the eighteenth century, the visiting Prussian scientist Alexander Von Humboldt (1769–1859) noted that the locals preferred to be called Americans rather than Spaniards. Meanwhile, Spanish officials and newcomers consistently treated Creoles with disdain, maintaining and further widening the social gap between them.

While Spain was racially "pure" in the sense that the Moors, Jews, Romani people, and other ethnic groups had been kicked out centuries before, the New World populations were a diverse mixture of Europeans, Indigenous people (some of whom were enslaved), and enslaved Black people. The highly racist colonial society was extremely sensitive to minute percentages of Black or Indigenous blood. A person's status in society could be determined by how many 64ths of Spanish heritage one had.

To further muddle things up, Spanish law allowed wealthy people of mixed heritage to "buy" whiteness and thus rise in a society that did not want to see their status change. This caused resentment within the privileged classes. The "dark side" of the revolutions was that they were fought, in part, to maintain a racist status quo in the colonies freed of Spanish liberalism.

Final Straw: Napoleon Invades Spain 1808

Tired of the waffling of Charles IV and Spain's inconsistency as an ally, Napoleon invaded in 1808 and quickly conquered not only Spain but Portugal as well. He replaced Charles IV with his own brother,  Joseph Bonaparte . A Spain ruled by France was an outrage even for New World loyalists. Many men and women who would have otherwise supported the royalist side now joined the insurgents. Those who resisted Napoleon in Spain begged the colonials for help but refused to promise to reduce trade restrictions if they won.

The chaos in Spain provided a perfect excuse to rebel without committing treason. Many Creoles said they were loyal to Spain, not Napoleon. In places like Argentina, colonies "sort of" declared independence, claiming they would only rule themselves until such time as Charles IV or his son Ferdinand was put back on the Spanish throne. This half-measure was much more palatable to those who did not want to declare independence outright. But in the end, there was no real going back from such a step. Argentina was the first to formally declare independence on July 9, 1816.

The independence of Latin America from Spain was a foregone conclusion as soon as the creoles began thinking of themselves as Americans and the Spaniards as something different from them. By that time, Spain was between a rock and a hard place: The creoles clamored for positions of influence in the colonial bureaucracy and for freer trade. Spain granted neither, which caused great resentment and helped lead to independence. Even if Spain had agreed to these changes, they would have created a more powerful, wealthy colonial elite with experience in administering their home regions—a road that also would have led directly to independence. Some Spanish officials must have realized this and so the decision was taken to squeeze the utmost out of the colonial system before it collapsed.

Of all of the factors listed above, the most important is probably  Napoleon 's invasion of Spain. Not only did it provide a massive distraction and tie up Spanish troops and ships, it pushed many undecided Creoles over the edge in favor of independence. By the time Spain was beginning to stabilize—Ferdinand reclaimed the throne in 1813—colonies in Mexico, Argentina, and northern South America were in revolt.

• Lockhart, James, and Stuart B. Schwartz. "Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil." Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
• Lynch, John.  Simón Bolívar: A Life.  2006: Yale University Press.
• Scheina, Robert L. " Latin America's Wars: The Age of the Caudillo, 1791–1899."  Washington: Brassey's, 2003.
• Selbin, Eric. "Modern Latin American Revolutions," 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2018. 
• Civil Wars and Revolutions in Latin American History
• The 10 Most Important Events in the History of Latin America
• Mestizaje in Latin America: Definition and History
• 10 Facts About Simon Bolivar
• Biography of Francisco de Miranda, Venezuelan Leader
• How Latin America Gained Independence from Spain
• Venezuela’s Declaration of Independence in 1810
• The 10 Most Influential Latin Americans in History
• How Did Porfirio Diaz Stay in Power for 35 Years?
• Wars in Latin, South American History
• The Haitian Revolution: Successful Revolt by an Enslaved People
• Independence Days in Latin America
• Biography of Pascual Orozco, Early Leader of the Mexican Revolution
• Buena Vista Social Club: Cuban Music Recaptures the World's Attention
• The Nicaraguan Revolution: History and Impact
• Biography of Eloy Alfaro

Join our Mailing List

Latin American Independence in the Age of Revolutions

• August 25, 2021
• 18th Century , 19th Century , Collection Essays

Introduction

Between 1775 and 1850, most of the colonies in the Western hemisphere declared and successfully won their independence from the European monarchies of Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, and France. This era of European and American history is generally thought to begin with the Revolutionary War to found the United States of America and end with number of European efforts for democratic reforms in 1848, and is often referred to as the “Age of Revolutions or “Age of Revolution.”

In the American colonies formerly held by Spain and Portugal—what we now refer to as Latin America—colonists claimed independence in a series of military and political struggles between 1808 and 1825, capitalizing on a particularly tumultuous period on the Iberian Peninsula and in Europe more broadly. White elites of Spanish descent in the colonies, particularly those born in the Americas (known as criollos or creoles), protested the demands and constraints of the imperial states, particularly the taxes and other economic burdens imposed by the colonial powers on their colonies, and the lack of opportunities for creoles in colonial administration. These complaints converged with ideas of Enlightenment thinkers about freedom, progress, and representative government, and the examples of the revolutions in the United States, France, and Haiti, to form independence movements. These ideas also resonated with many members of oppressed and marginalized populations, including enslaved people, people of color, the Indigenous, the poor, and almost all women—many of whom joined the struggles for independence in hopes of winning greater measures of equality and freedom for themselves under new regimes.

By 1836, the former Latin American colonies of Colombia, Mexico, Chile, Paraguay, Venezuela, Argentina, Peru, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, Ecuador, and Bolivia had gained independence from Spain; Brazil from Portugal; and Uruguay from Brazil. That year, Spain formally renounced all claims to these lands. Cuba and Puerto Rico would remain Spanish colonies until the Spanish-American War of 1898; in the Dominican Republic, the fight for independence from Spain and from Haiti continued into the 1860s.

Essential Questions:

• What were some of the contextual issues in the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires that are important for understanding why an independence movement evolved?
• How did the American (United States), Haitian, and French Revolutions influence and differ from the Latin American independence struggles?
• How did people of different races, ethnic groups, and genders contribute to Latin American independence?
• What challenges faced newly independent Latin American nations in deciding how they would be governed? Who was involved in those decisions?

Colonial Contexts

Over three centuries of colonial rule, Spain and Portugal enforced a racial caste system. While complex and fluid, the system placed European-born whites at the top and people of color at the bottom.

Many Indigenous people insisted on their human and land rights, even as colonial governments sought to extract work and wealth from them. In the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, the Spanish were imposing their own system of haciendas (large land estates, often plantations), ranches, and other mechanisms to regulate land in their colony of New Spain (which stretched from Central America to the Pacific Northwest). In response to policies threatening Indigenous communities’ land, water, and autonomy, communities developed Techialoyan documents, often called “village land books.” These manuscript documents aimed to support Indigenous land claims in Mexico by documenting the founding and history of a town, illustrating long-established boundaries predating the arrival of Spanish colonists. Indigenous people used the documents to prove to Spanish administrators that their towns’ autonomy should be respected as cabeceras (judicial districts). This example, known as the Codex Zempoala from the town of Zempoala in central Mexico, is composed of bound sheets of amatl paper, made in Mexico from pounded fig tree bark. It combines short written phrases describing the land in the Nahuatl language with illustrations of people, plants, buildings, and other features found there.

Enslavement of African-born people was central to the Spanish and Portuguese colonial enterprises in the Americas, particularly after Indigenous people were granted some rights and their slavery was abolished by the Spanish in the sixteenth century. Resources mined and harvested by enslaved Africans and their descendants provided wealth for European and American-born enslavers. A German artist, Johann Moritz Rugendas, visited Brazil as part of an exploratory and scientific mission in the 1820s. He depicted enslaved people working in a variety of capacities, including clearing forests for plantations; preparing cassava root, a food crop; harvesting coffee; operating a sugar mill; carrying water from a well; and gold mining.

Selection: Johann Mortiz Rugendas, Voyage pittoresque dans le Brésil, plates 6, 8, 9, 22 (1835).

By the middle of the eighteenth century, Spanish monarchs instituted sweeping reforms of the administration of their colonies, known as the Bourbon Reforms (after the House of Bourbon, the noble family of the new Spanish royalty). Led particularly by José de Gálvez, Minister of the Indies, the reforms included transfers of power to Spanish-born administrators appointed by the crown from local American-born authorities (both creole and Indigenous) and a focus on improving revenue sent to Spain, including emphasizing mining of precious metals, improving tax collection, and restricting trade. Similar reforms were put into effect by the Portuguese in Brazil. American-born creole elites resented and protested these reforms, which reduced their autonomy and reinforced caste hierarchies. In a report to Gálvez from around 1766 about the Yucatán province in present-day southern Mexico, Spanish administrators explain their chronic problems with smugglers importing contraband goods on which Spain held a trade monopoly:

Selection: Descripcion de la Provincia de Jucatan con informe de su govierno secular y eclesiastico, comercio, cultivo, amenidad, situacion financiera (Description of the Yucatan Province, with a Report on Its Secular and Ecclesiastical Government, Commerce, Cultivation, Amenities, Financial Situation) , 42r and 42v (c. 1766).

Translation of the above excerpt: With the skimpy investment in trade here, and its few branches and profits, everyone, fleeing from the taxes and formalities suffered in Campeche and considering the new fees in Veracruz and Havana, thinks to accommodate himself without expense, to provide for himself more cheaply than by paying your taxes and fees, and with more certain profit–at the expense of some risk. These profits that smuggling offers make them look abroad and apart from their own homeland; they get cash in hand, and save the excess that had been asked of them by the European-born Spanish (who is cashier or buyer for foreigners), and it is here that the temptation of smuggling is born, in which they make their profits to the ruin of the state …

Questions to consider:

• Why do you think the Codex Zempoala includes a combination of drawings and written language? What different purposes and audiences might these types of communication (and the combination of the two) serve?
• Most official documents in the Latin American colonies were written on paper made in Europe and shipped across the Atlantic Ocean. What is the significance of the Codex Zempoala being made on Mexican amatl?
• Looking at Rugendas’s images of the work of enslaved people, what do you think the artist was most interested in? The work operations? The different classes of racial types of people involved? The relationships among enslaved people or between the enslavers and the enslaved? The context of rural or urban setting? Why do you think so?
• What motivations for independence do you find in the administrative report from the Yucatán? Consider motivations for consumers in the colonies, businesspeople involved in selling goods, and even the administrators writing the report.

Revolutionary Rumblings

Many uprisings of Indigenous peoples, the enslaved, and mixed-race creole coalitions dissatisfied with European colonial governance preceded the wars of independence of the early nineteenth century. The Túpac Amaru rebellion in Peru from 1780-82 was the largest and bloodiest of these. The rebellion was originally led by the Indigenous kuraka (or clan leader) Túpac Amaru and his wife, Micaela Bastidas, and grew into a conflict that claimed tens of thousands of lives across present-day Peru and Bolivia. Túpac Amaru was motivated at least in part by a prophecy of the return of the Inca empire; the Spanish banned a popular account of the empire, Inca Garcilaso de la Vega’s Royal Commentaries of the Incas , in response.

Selection: Garcilaso de la Vega, The Royal Commentaries of Peru , “The City of Cuzco,” 13-14 (1688).

Tight control of the press by Spanish and Portuguese powers could not stop news of the revolutions in the United States, Haiti, and France from spreading in the colonies. Expatriates from Latin America who witnessed these changes and their aftermath firsthand brought radical ideas back with them to Latin America. The founding documents and republican structure of the government of the young United States were particularly influential. Vicente Rocafuerte, born into an aristocratic creole family in Ecuador, was based in the United States in the early 1820s, and in 1821 published Spanish translations of the United States’ founding documents as well as important speeches about its governmental structure, titled Ideas Necesarias á Todo Pueblo Americano Independiente, Que Quiera Ser Libre ( Ideas Necessary for All Independent American People Who Want to Be Free ).

Selection: Rocafuerte, Ideas Necesarias á Todo Pueblo Americano Independiente ( Ideas Necessary for All Independent American People Who Want to Be Free ) , title page, 5-7 (1821).

Translation of the above selection: These ideas [of constitutional government] so pleasing to rational man have gradually developed over time and prepared the current era of constitutional systems. This is now the general vote of Europe, and no matter how much those same impostors and vile tyrants who have replaced the great Napoleon try to oppose it, the august cause of constitutional freedom will triumph. There is no doubt, the victory is certain, despite the continuous and daily struggle that exists between ignorance and knowledge, superstition and religion, darkness and light, arbitrariness and law, caprice and justice. The constitutional laws are the true bases of grand and respectable freedom: the peoples of the world accustomed to the representative system will take giant steps in the race for their happiness…. In general, men are ready to use their reason… wanting to save as much as possible the fruits of their efforts and hard work, they will come to understand that it is absurd for people who live in deprivation, to give an income of 2, 3, or 4 million dollars to the so-called legitimate constitutional kings, such as those of France, England and Spain. They will compare the excessive expenses of these constitutional monarchies with the admirable economy of the American government; they will see the practicality that to govern great nations neither privileged families, nor crowns, nor crosses, nor titles, nor plagues of courtiers are needed; that only one head of the executive branch is enough, a president like that of the United States with $25,000 salary. Finally, they will understand that the most perfect government is the American one, the only one where man enjoys the greatest advantages of society, with the least possible tax; and as the human species has a natural tendency towards its perfection, the time will come when all aspire to change their constitutional monarchies into American governments; as today they are aspiring to change their despotic thrones into constitutional monarchies.

The impact of the Haitian Revolution (1791-1804) on its mainland neighbors, both northern and southern, can hardly be overestimated. In the United States, news reports and the accounts of exiles from the former French colony of Saint-Domingue provoked discussion of abolition and Black capability, stoked fears of violent insurrections by the enslaved, and caused a reexamination of the country’s own revolution and founding documents. Early South American revolutionaries of African descent visited Haiti or were inspired by its example, including José Chirino (Venezuela, 1795), instigators of the “Revolt of the Tailors” (Brazil, 1798), and Francisco Xavier Pirela (Venezuela, 1799). The specter of “another Haiti” also was raised as the justification for merciless suppression of conflicts, and news about the conflict was suppressed as much as possible by administrators in colonial Latin America.

Selection: “Proclamation for a solemn Abjuration of the French Nation” [Haitian Declaration of Independence], in Marcus Rainsford, An Historical Account of the Black Empire of Hayti , 442-446 (1805).

Questions to Consider:

• Consider the visual depiction of Cuzco and the description of its founding in the Royal Commentaries of Peru. Why might the Spanish have felt threatened by this depiction?
• Examine the title page for Ideas Necesarias á Todo Pueblo Americano Independiente and think about the excerpt from Rocafuerte’s prologue. Who do you think his intended audience was for this book?
• Reading the Haitian Declaration of Independence, why do you think Spanish and Portuguese administrators found this document much more dangerous than the American Declaration of Independence? How does its rhetoric differ from the American Declaration?

Selection: Powers of the Peoples

Napoleon Bonaparte’s French army invaded and occupied Portugal in 1807 and then Spain in 1808. The Portuguese royal family fled across the Atlantic Ocean to Brazil, making Rio de Janeiro the new capital of the empire. In Spain, Napoleon forced the Spanish monarchs Charles IV and Ferdinand VII to relinquish the crown and placed them in exile. He installed his brother Joseph as king; Spanish subjects immediately rejected his rule, leading to six years of war to free the Iberian Peninsula. This conflict allowed movements toward independence to flourish in Latin America. Throughout the Spanish American colonies, in the absence of a leader acknowledged as an authentic monarch, groups of local civic leaders, or juntas , claimed power previously held by Spanish officials. From Mexico to Argentina, these new self-governing bodies first ostensibly ruled in the name of the true Spanish king, but long-held resentments by the American-born, mostly creole, leaders sparked movements toward true independence—which, in turn, sparked military conflicts.

In 1813, the Argentinian General Assembly ratified the 1811 decree of the provisional Buenos Aires junta that abolished obligations for forced labor—the mita, encomienda, and yanaconazgo —and tributes to the church that had been expected of Indigenous people for centuries. Though many of these obligations had also been abolished under Spanish law earlier, the practice continued particularly in Andean regions. The government in Argentina printed the decree in the three most prevalent Indigenous languages of the region—Aymara, Quechua, and Guarani—in addition to Spanish.

Translation of selection from Decreto on the right: The General Assembly sanctions the decree issued by the Provisional Government Junta of these provinces on September 1, 1811, regarding the extinction of the tribute, and also repealing the mita , the encomiendas , the yanaconazgo , and personal services of the Indians under all respects, and without excepting even that which they render to the churches, and their parish priests, or ministers; being the will of this Sovereign Corporation, that, in the same way, the aforementioned Indians of all the United Provinces are held as perfectly free men, and with rights equal to all the other citizens who populate them …

Creole leaders such as Simón Bolívar in Venezuela, José de San Martín in Argentina, Miguel Hidalgo in Mexico, Antonio José de Sucre in Peru and Bolivia, and Bernardo O’Higgins in Chile were the political and military leaders of these conflicts. Compared to other conflicts such as the revolutionary wars in the United States and Haiti, the armies fighting for independence in Latin America were thoroughly multiracial. Thousands of Indigenous people, free Black men, and others of mixed race served as soldiers. They included many non-white and mixed-race leaders such as Vicente Guerrero in Mexico and José Antonio Páez in Venezuela.

Páez led Venezuelan llaneros , herders of the grassy plains who acted as cavalry units as a result of to their skill with lances on horseback. The llaneros would become legendary and romanticized for their bravery and importance in Bolívar’s army. Páez’s son Ramón provided an account of the most celebrated victory of the llaneros , the Battle of Las Queseras del Medio, in his book Wild Scenes in South America; or Life in the Venezuelan Llanos:

Selection: Ramón Páez, Wild Scenes in South America, or, Life in the Llanos of Venezuela , 328-330 (1862).

• Why do you think the decision was made to abolish Indigenous peoples’ monetary tribute and labor requirements in Buenos Aires in 1811, and ratified in 1813? What is the significance of it being printed in three Indigenous languages?
• What advantages of the South American rebels against the Spanish forces do you notice in the account from Wild Scenes in South America ? What disadvantages?
• What arguments would you use to argue that Ramon Paez’s account of the Battle of Las Queseras del Medio is a trustworthy primary source? What arguments would you use to argue against that?

Liberty’s Promise, Liberty’s Problems

Independence in Latin America came at a massive cost—hundreds of thousands of lives and incalculable resources. Even before the wars with the Spanish forces (and Americano loyalists) were officially won, debates raged over the forms and principles of government for the new nations being formed. Bolívar and other framers of foundational documents in this period—primarily, but not exclusively, creoles—were profoundly influenced by ideas drawn from the writings of the French philosopher Montesquieu. In 1819, Bolívar convened the Second National Congress of Venezuela at Angostura (commonly referred to as the Congress of Angostura) to form the new nation of Colombia (later referred to as Gran Colombia, including present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Panama, along with parts of other nations). In his Inaugural Address to the Congress, Bolívar proposed his understanding of the Montesquieu’s guidance, rather than the US Constitution, as a guiding light for the Congress’s deliberations:

Does not L’esprit de lois [Montesquieu’s treatise The Spirit of the Laws] state that laws should be suited to the people for whom they are made; that it would be a major coincidence if those of one nation could be adapted to another; that laws must take into account the physical conditions of the country, climate, character of the land, location, size, and mode of living of the people; that they should be in keeping with the degree of liberty that the Constitution can sanction respecting the religion of the inhabitants, their inclinations, resources, number, commerce, habits, and customs? This is the code we must consult, not the code of Washington!

Selection: Simón Bolívar, Selected Writings , 179-180 (1951).

The tension between democratic ideals and republican constitutions on the one hand, and the belief of many creole leaders that Spanish tyranny had left the peoples of Latin America unprepared for full democracy on the other, led many nations to centralize power in the hands of a strong executive such as a President or Emperor. In many cases, this was ostensiblya temporary measure as the population acclimated to the participation required of citizens in a republic. In Mexico, for example, the military leader Agustín de Iturbide switched sides from the Spanish to the Mexican independence movement and led the Mexican forces in claiming victory in 1821. He was proclaimed constitutional Emperor of Mexico in 1822, but was resisted by the national congress, was forced into exile in 1823, and tried and executed upon his return in 1824. A new republican constitution was passed in 1824. The printing of the constitution was accompanied by an engraving symbolizing the new Estados Unidos Mexicanos (United Mexican States).

• Compare the text from Bolívar’s address to the Congress of Angostura to the text from Vicente Rocafuerte’s prologue to Ideas Necesarias á Todo Pueblo Americano Independiente. What factors might explain the different rhetoric toward the United States’ system of government in these two works?
• Compare the image of Agustín de Iturbide as first emperor of Mexico and the engraved emblem of Mexico that accompanied the republican constitution of 1824. How do these images illustrate the transition from an authoritarian to a republican government?

Further Reading

For more information on castes in the Spanish colonies (and especially New Spain), see the Digital Collection “ Caste and Politics in the Struggles for Mexican Independence .”

Ávila, Alfredo and Jordana Dym, eds. Los Declaraciones de Independencia: Los Textos Fundamentales de las Independencias Americanas . México: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, El Colegio de México, 2013.

Bolívar, Simón; Harold A. Bierck, trans. Selected Writings of Bolivar. New York: Colonial Press, 1951.

Chambers, Sarah C. and John Charles Chasteen, eds. and transl. Latin American Independence: An Anthology of Sources . Indianapolis IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 2010.

Chasteen, John Charles. Americanos: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Dubois, Laurent. Avengers of the New World: The Story of the Haitian Revolution . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.

Fitz, Caitlin. Our Sister Republics: The United States in an Age of American Revolutions . New York: Liveright, 2016.

Langley, Lester D. The Americas in the Age of Revolution, 1750-1850. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

Lynch, John. The Spanish American Revolutions, 1808-1826. New York: Norton, 1986.

Klooster, Wim. Revolutions in the Atlantic World: A Comparative History , New Edition. New York: New York University Press, 2018.

Ricketts, Mónica, Who Should Rule? Men of Arms, the Republic of Letters, and the Fall of the Spanish Empire . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Soriano, Cristina. Tides of Revolution: Information, Insurgencies, and the Crisis of Colonial Rule in Venezuela. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2018.

• Subject List
• Take a Tour
• For Authors
• Subscriber Services
• Publications
• African American Studies
• African Studies
• American Literature
• Anthropology
• Architecture Planning and Preservation
• Art History

Atlantic History

• Biblical Studies
• British and Irish Literature
• Childhood Studies
• Chinese Studies
• Cinema and Media Studies
• Communication
• Criminology
• Environmental Science
• Evolutionary Biology
• International Law
• International Relations
• Islamic Studies
• Jewish Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Latino Studies
• Linguistics
• Literary and Critical Theory
• Medieval Studies
• Military History
• Political Science
• Public Health
• Renaissance and Reformation
• Social Work
• Urban Studies
• Victorian Literature
• Browse All Subjects

How to Subscribe

• Free Trials

In This Article Expand or collapse the "in this article" section Latin American Independence

Introduction, general overviews.

• Textbooks And Surveys
• Bibliographies
• Maps and Illustrations
• Document Collections
• The Example of Saint Domingue
• Precursors to Independence
• Latin American Wars of Independence
• The Brazilian Anomaly

Related Articles Expand or collapse the "related articles" section about

About related articles close popup.

Lorem Ipsum Sit Dolor Amet

Vestibulum ante ipsum primis in faucibus orci luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia Curae; Aliquam ligula odio, euismod ut aliquam et, vestibulum nec risus. Nulla viverra, arcu et iaculis consequat, justo diam ornare tellus, semper ultrices tellus nunc eu tellus.

• Alexander von Humboldt and Transatlantic Studies
• Central American Independence
• Colonial Governance in Spanish America
• Cortes of Cádiz
• Early Modern Portugal
• Early Modern Spain
• Emancipation
• Gender in Iberian America
• Havana in the Atlantic World
• Iberian Atlantic World, 1600-1800
• Iberian Empires, 1600-1800
• James Monroe
• Nineteenth-Century Atlantic World
• Rio de Janeiro
• Spanish America After Independence, 1825-1900
• Spanish Atlantic World
• The American Revolution
• The Black Atlantic in the Age of Revolutions
• The Bourbon Reforms in the Spanish Atlantic
• The French Revolution
• The Haitian Revolution
• The Maritime Atlantic in the Age of Revolutions
• The Spanish Caribbean

Other Subject Areas

Forthcoming articles expand or collapse the "forthcoming articles" section.

• Ecology and Nineteenth-Century Anglophone Atlantic Literature
• Maritime Literature
• The History of Mary Prince (1831)
• Find more forthcoming articles...
• Export Citations
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Latin American Independence by Jane Landers LAST REVIEWED: 27 December 2010 LAST MODIFIED: 27 December 2010 DOI: 10.1093/obo/9780199730414-0036

The various independence movements in Latin America drew on Enlightenment philosophies about proper forms of government and the Rights of Man and on the revolutionary examples of the American colonies and Saint Domingue. Spanish American creoles chafed under the increasingly more intrusive and extractive Bourbon monarchies, as well their declining status in imperial administrations staffed by peninsular Spaniards. Napoleon’s invasion of Spain gave creoles the excuse they needed to claim self-rule in the name of their imprisoned king, but early attempts at full-blown independence, such as Francisco Miranda’s in Gran Colombia and Father Hidalgo’s in New Spain, were crushed. Simón Bolívar led the independence wars in northern South America while Juan de San Martín led the southern campaigns. Spain responded by sending peninsular troops under General Pablo Morrillo to secure the north and the result was bloody race war. Royalists in the viceroyalties of New Spain and Peru also held out against independence. Meanwhile, Brazilian independence took a completely different course. In 1808, in the wake of Napoleon’s invasion of Portugal, the king and court fled to Brazil, thus elevating the former colony to the royal headquarters. When King João finally returned to Portugal in 1821, his son Pedro I remained in Brazil to declare a bloodless independence.

Given the importance of the subject, there are a number of strong works by leading figures in the field including Bethell 1987 , Lynch 1994 , Graham 1994 , and, more recently, Chasteen 2008 , which takes a transatlantic perspective and also addresses popular and cultural history.

Bethell, Leslie, ed. The Independence of Latin America . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Excellent collection of essays gathered from early volumes of the Cambridge History of Latin America . State-of-the-field essays when they were produced in the early 1980s.

Chasteen, John Charles. Americanos: Latin America’s Struggle for Independence . Pivotal Moments in World History. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Lively and accessible text that argues for the creation of an “americano” identity arising out of the wars of independence. Covers the main arenas and leaders from earliest failed revolts, through the creation of sovereign states based on liberal principles that many subsequently failed to honor. Includes a list of leading actors, a glossary, and recommended sources and readings.

Graham, Richard. Independence in Latin America: A Comparative Approach . 2d ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.

This substantially revised edition of Graham’s 1972 survey combines synthetic thematic chapters interspersed with brief chapters on how the independence wars affected different modern countries. Best short survey available in English.

Lynch, John, ed. Latin American Revolutions, 1808–1826: Old and New World Origins . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994.

This excellent teaching tool includes chapters by top scholars from the United States and Latin America, introduced by the author of one of the most influential early surveys of the revolutions. Includes primary documents of the era written by Alexander von Humboldt, Simón Bolívar, and Manuel Belgrano, among others.

back to top

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content on this page. Please subscribe or login .

Oxford Bibliographies Online is available by subscription and perpetual access to institutions. For more information or to contact an Oxford Sales Representative click here .

• About Atlantic History »
• Meet the Editorial Board »
• Abolition of Slavery
• Abolitionism and Africa
• Africa and the Atlantic World
• African American Religions
• African Religion and Culture
• African Retailers and Small Artisans in the Atlantic World
• Age of Atlantic Revolutions, The
• America, Pre-Contact
• American Revolution, The
• Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Popery
• Army, British
• Art and Artists
• Asia and the Americas and the Iberian Empires
• Atlantic Biographies
• Atlantic Creoles
• Atlantic History and Hemispheric History
• Atlantic Migration
• Atlantic New Orleans: 18th and 19th Centuries
• Atlantic Trade and the British Economy
• Atlantic Trade and the European Economy
• Bacon's Rebellion
• Barbados in the Atlantic World
• Barbary States
• Berbice in the Atlantic World
• Black Atlantic in the Age of Revolutions, The
• Bolívar, Simón
• Borderlands
• Bourbon Reforms in the Spanish Atlantic, The
• Brazil and Africa
• Brazilian Independence
• Britain and Empire, 1685-1730
• British Atlantic Architectures
• British Atlantic World
• Buenos Aires in the Atlantic World
• Cabato, Giovanni (John Cabot)
• Cannibalism
• Captain John Smith
• Captivity in Africa
• Captivity in North America
• Caribbean, The
• Cartier, Jacques
• Catholicism
• Cattle in the Atlantic World
• Central Europe and the Atlantic World
• Chartered Companies, British and Dutch
• Chinese Indentured Servitude in the Atlantic World
• Church and Slavery
• Cities and Urbanization in Portuguese America
• Citizenship in the Atlantic World
• Class and Social Structure
• Coastal/Coastwide Trade
• Cod in the Atlantic World
• Colonial Governance in the Atlantic World
• Colonialism and Postcolonialism
• Colonization, Ideologies of
• Colonization of English America
• Communications in the Atlantic World
• Comparative Indigenous History of the Americas
• Confraternities
• Constitutions
• Continental America
• Cook, Captain James
• Cosmopolitanism
• Credit and Debt
• Creek Indians in the Atlantic World, The
• Creolization
• Criminal Transportation in the Atlantic World
• Crowds in the Atlantic World
• Death in the Atlantic World
• Demography of the Atlantic World
• Diaspora, Jewish
• Diaspora, The Acadian
• Disease in the Atlantic World
• Domestic Production and Consumption in the Atlantic World
• Domestic Slave Trades in the Americas
• Dreams and Dreaming
• Dutch Atlantic World
• Dutch Brazil
• Dutch Caribbean and Guianas, The
• Early Modern Amazonia
• Early Modern France
• Economy and Consumption in the Atlantic World
• Economy of British America, The
• Edwards, Jonathan
• Empire and State Formation
• Enlightenment, The
• Environment and the Natural World
• Europe and Africa
• Europe and the Atlantic World, Northern
• Europe and the Atlantic World, Western
• European Enslavement of Indigenous People in the Americas
• European, Javanese and African and Indentured Servitude in...
• Evangelicalism and Conversion
• Female Slave Owners
• First Contact and Early Colonization of Brazil
• Fiscal-Military State
• Forts, Fortresses, and Fortifications
• Founding Myths of the Americas
• France and Empire
• France and its Empire in the Indian Ocean
• France and the British Isles from 1640 to 1789
• Free People of Color
• Free Ports in the Atlantic World
• French Army and the Atlantic World, The
• French Atlantic World
• French Emancipation
• French Revolution, The
• Gender in North America
• Gender in the Atlantic World
• Gender in the Caribbean
• George Montagu Dunk, Second Earl of Halifax
• Georgia in the Atlantic World
• German Influences in America
• Germans in the Atlantic World
• Giovanni da Verrazzano, Explorer
• Glorious Revolution
• Godparents and Godparenting
• Great Awakening
• Green Atlantic: the Irish in the Atlantic World
• Guianas, The
• Haitian Revolution, The
• Hanoverian Britain
• Hinterlands of the Atlantic World
• Histories and Historiographies of the Atlantic World
• Hunger and Food Shortages
• Iberian Inquisitions
• Idea of Atlantic History, The
• Impact of the French Revolution on the Caribbean, The
• Indentured Servitude
• Indentured Servitude in the Atlantic World, Indian
• India, The Atlantic Ocean and
• Indigenous Knowledge
• Indigo in the Atlantic World
• Internal Slave Migrations in the Americas
• Interracial Marriage in the Atlantic World
• Ireland and the Atlantic World
• Iroquois (Haudenosaunee)
• Islam and the Atlantic World
• Itinerant Traders, Peddlers, and Hawkers
• Jamaica in the Atlantic World
• Jefferson, Thomas
• Jews and Blacks
• Labor Systems
• Land and Propert in the Atlantic World
• Language, State, and Empire
• Languages, Caribbean Creole
• Latin American Independence
• Law and Slavery
• Legal Culture
• Leisure in the British Atlantic World
• Letters and Letter Writing
• Literature and Culture
• Literature of the British Caribbean
• Literature, Slavery and Colonization
• Liverpool in The Atlantic World 1500-1833
• Louverture, Toussaint
• Manumission
• Maps in the Atlantic World
• Maritime Atlantic in the Age of Revolutions, The
• Markets in the Atlantic World
• Maroons and Marronage
• Marriage and Family in the Atlantic World
• Material Culture in the Atlantic World
• Material Culture of Slavery in the British Atlantic
• Medicine in the Atlantic World
• Mental Disorder in the Atlantic World
• Mercantilism
• Merchants in the Atlantic World
• Merchants' Networks
• Migrations and Diasporas
• Minas Gerais
• Mining, Gold, and Silver
• Missionaries
• Missionaries, Native American
• Money and Banking in the Atlantic Economy
• Monroe, James
• Morris, Gouverneur
• Music and Music Making
• Napoléon Bonaparte and the Atlantic World
• Nation and Empire in Northern Atlantic History
• Nation, Nationhood, and Nationalism
• Native American Histories in North America
• Native American Networks
• Native American Religions
• Native Americans and Africans
• Native Americans and the American Revolution
• Native Americans and the Atlantic World
• Native Americans in Cities
• Native Americans in Europe
• Native North American Women
• Native Peoples of Brazil
• Natural History
• Networks for Migrations and Mobility
• Networks of Science and Scientists
• New England in the Atlantic World
• New France and Louisiana
• New York City
• Nineteenth-Century France
• Nobility and Gentry in the Early Modern Atlantic World
• North Africa and the Atlantic World
• Northern New Spain
• Novel in the Age of Revolution, The
• Oceanic History
• Pacific, The
• Paine, Thomas
• Papacy and the Atlantic World
• People of African Descent in Early Modern Europe
• Pets and Domesticated Animals in the Atlantic World
• Philadelphia
• Philanthropy
• Phillis Wheatley
• Plantations in the Atlantic World
• Poetry in the British Atlantic
• Political Participation in the Nineteenth Century Atlantic...
• Polygamy and Bigamy
• Port Cities, British
• Port Cities, British American
• Port Cities, French
• Port Cities, French American
• Port Cities, Iberian
• Ports, African
• Portugal and Brazile in the Age of Revolutions
• Portugal, Early Modern
• Portuguese Atlantic World
• Poverty in the Early Modern English Atlantic
• Pre-Columbian Transatlantic Voyages
• Pregnancy and Reproduction
• Print Culture in the British Atlantic
• Proprietary Colonies
• Protestantism
• Quebec and the Atlantic World, 1760–1867
• Race and Racism
• Race, The Idea of
• Reconstruction, Democracy, and United States Imperialism
• Red Atlantic
• Refugees, Saint-Domingue
• Religion and Colonization
• Religion in the British Civil Wars
• Religious Border-Crossing
• Religious Networks
• Representations of Slavery
• Republicanism
• Rice in the Atlantic World
• Russia and North America
• Saint Domingue
• Saint-Louis, Senegal
• Salvador da Bahia
• Scandinavian Chartered Companies
• Science and Technology (in Literature of the Atlantic Worl...
• Science, History of
• Scotland and the Atlantic World
• Sea Creatures in the Atlantic World
• Second-Hand Trade
• Settlement and Region in British America, 1607-1763
• Seven Years' War, The
• Sex and Sexuality in the Atlantic World
• Shakespeare and the Atlantic World
• Ships and Shipping
• Slave Codes
• Slave Names and Naming in the Anglophone Atlantic
• Slave Owners In The British Atlantic
• Slave Rebellions
• Slave Resistance in the Atlantic World
• Slave Trade and Natural Science, The
• Slave Trade, The Atlantic
• Slavery and Empire
• Slavery and Fear
• Slavery and Gender
• Slavery and the Family
• Slavery, Atlantic
• Slavery, Health, and Medicine
• Slavery in Africa
• Slavery in Brazil
• Slavery in British America
• Slavery in British and American Literature
• Slavery in Danish America
• Slavery in Dutch America and the West Indies
• Slavery in New England
• Slavery in North America, The Growth and Decline of
• Slavery in the Cape Colony, South Africa
• Slavery in the French Atlantic World
• Slavery, Native American
• Slavery, Public Memory and Heritage of
• Slavery, The Origins of
• Slavery, Urban
• Sociability in the British Atlantic
• Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts...
• South Atlantic
• South Atlantic Creole Archipelagos
• South Carolina
• Sovereignty and the Law
• Spain, Early Modern
• Spanish American Port Cities
• Spanish Colonization to 1650
• Subjecthood in the Atlantic World
• Sugar in the Atlantic World
• Swedish Atlantic World, The
• Technology, Inventing, and Patenting
• Textiles in the Atlantic World
• Texts, Printing, and the Book
• The American West
• The Danish Atlantic World
• The French Lesser Antilles
• The Fur Trade
• Time(scapes) in the Atlantic World
• Toleration in the Atlantic World
• Transatlantic Political Economy
• Travel Writing (in the Atlantic World)
• Tudor and Stuart Britain in the Wider World, 1485-1685
• Universities
• USA and Empire in the 19th Century
• Venezuela and the Atlantic World
• Visual Art and Representation
• War and Trade
• War of 1812
• War of the Spanish Succession
• Warfare in Spanish America
• Warfare in 17th-Century North America
• Warfare, Medicine, and Disease in the Atlantic World
• West Indian Economic Decline
• Whitefield, George
• Whiteness in the Atlantic World
• William Blackstone
• William Shakespeare, The Tempest (1611)
• William Wilberforce
• Witchcraft in the Atlantic World
• Women and the Law
• Women Prophets
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility

Powered by:

• [185.80.150.64]
• 185.80.150.64

Our systems are now restored following recent technical disruption, and we’re working hard to catch up on publishing. We apologise for the inconvenience caused. Find out more: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• < Back to search results
• The Cambridge Companion to Latin American Independence

The Cambridge Companion to Latin American Independence

• Get access Buy a print copy Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register
• Edited by Marcela Echeverri , Yale University, Connecticut , Cristina Soriano , The University of Texas, Austin
• Export citation
• Buy a print copy

Book description

Bringing together experts across Latin America, North America, and Spain, The Cambridge Companion to Latin American Independence innovatively revisits Latin American independence within a larger regional, temporal, and thematic framework to highlight its significance for the Age of Atlantic Revolutions. The volume offers a synthetic yet comprehensive tool for understanding and assessing the most current studies in the field and their analytical contributions to the broader historiography. Organized thematically and across different regions of the Iberian Peninsula and Spanish and Luso America, the essays deepen well-known conclusions and reveal new interpretations. They offer analytical interventions that produce new questions on periodization, the meaning of anti-colonialism, liberalism, and republicanism, as well as the militarization of societies, public opinion, the role of sciences, labor regimes, and gender dynamics. A much-needed addition to the existing scholarship, this volume brings a transnational perspective to a critical period of history in Latin America.

‘A truly essential companion, this book permeates the mutual isolation between Luso-Brazilian and Spanish-American historiography, reconnects the crisis of 1808 with the processes of the 18th century, and illuminates intellectual, political, military, commercial, and labor relations that intertwined local dynamics with global trends, actors of both genders and varied fields, and narratives of past and future.’

Margarita Garrido - author of Reclamos y representaciones: variaciones sobre la poliìtica en el Nuevo Reino de Granada, 1770–1815

‘The Cambridge Companion to Latin American Independence is a wide-ranging and innovative set of essays written by excellent historians. These essays both synthesize the most recent scholarship on the period and launch incisive new questions on many topics.’

Peter Francis Guardino - author of The Time of Liberty: Popular Political Culture in Oaxaca, 1750–1850

‘This is a refreshing and energizing companion to the study of Latin American independence. By challenging inherited approaches, raising new questions and making connections and comparisons across both time and space, its authors provide fresh perspectives on key questions and offer an indispensable point of departure for future debate on the origins, character and meaning of the transition from colonial rule. Highly recommended.’

Anthony McFarlane - author of War and Independence in Spanish America

‘This timely volume offers new insights into the history of Latin American independence, a vigorous field of study that has recently experienced path-breaking innovations in perspectives and interpretations. The editors have pulled together a prominent group of international scholars who tread new historiographical grounds on different aspects of that multidimensional historical process.’

Hilda Sabato - author of Republics of the New World: The Revolutionary Political Experiment in Nineteenth-Century Latin America

‘Illuminating various new perspectives on a complex political-cultural panorama, this book will be an essential reference for the study of Latin American independence.’

Kristen Schulz Source: Hispanic American Historical Review

• Aa Reduce text
• Aa Enlarge text

Refine List

Actions for selected content:.

• View selected items
• Save to my bookmarks
• Export citations
• Download PDF (zip)
• Save to Kindle
• Save to Dropbox
• Save to Google Drive

Save content to

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to .

To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

The Cambridge Companion to Latin American Independence pp i-ii

• Get access Check if you have access via personal or institutional login Log in Register

The Cambridge Companion to Latin American Independence - Title page pp iii-iii

Copyright page pp iv-iv, dedication pp v-vi, contents pp vii-viii, figures pp ix-ix, maps pp x-x, contributors pp xi-xiv, acknowledgments pp xv-xvi, maps pp xvii-xviii, introduction pp 1-22.

• Rethinking Latin American Independence in the Twenty-First Century
• By Marcela Echeverri , Cristina Soriano

1 - On the Origins of Latin American Independence pp 23-61

• A Reappraisal of Colonial Crisis, Popular Politics, and Atlantic Revolution in the Eighteenth Century
• By Sinclair Thomson

2 - Constitutionalism and Representation in Ibero-America during the Independence Processes pp 62-90

• By Marcela Ternavasio

3 - Foreign Interaction and the Independence of Latin America pp 91-119

• Local Dynamics, Atlantic Processes
• By Ernesto Bassi , Fabrício Prado

4 - Public Opinion and Militarization during the Wars of Independence pp 120-152

• By Alejandro M. Rabinovich , Cristina Soriano

5 - Natural Histories of Remembrance and Forgetting pp 153-185

• Science and Independence in the Spanish and Portuguese Americas
• By Jorge Cañizares-Esguerra , Neil Safier

6 - Brothers in Arms pp 186-217

• Freemasonry in Latin American Independence
• By Karen Racine

7 - Beyond Heroes and Heroines pp 218-247

• Gendering Latin American Independence
• By Sarah C. Chambers

8 - Views of the Latin American Independences from the Iberian Peninsula pp 248-275

• By Álvaro Caso Bello , Gabriel Paquette

9 - Shades of Unfreedom pp 276-311

• Labor Regimes in Latin America in the Nineteenth Century
• By Marcela Echeverri , Roquinaldo Ferreira

10 - Early Liberalism pp 312-335

• Emancipation and Its Limits
• By José M. Portillo

Bibliography pp 336-396

Index pp 397-420, altmetric attention score, full text views.

Full text views reflects the number of PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views for chapters in this book.

Book summary page views

Book summary views reflect the number of visits to the book and chapter landing pages.

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between #date#. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Struggle for Mexican Independence

By: History.com Editors

Updated: September 15, 2021 | Original: September 14, 2010

On September 16, 1810, a progressive priest named Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla became the father of Mexican independence with a historic proclamation urging his fellow Mexicans to take up arms against the Spanish government. Known as the “Grito de Dolores,” Hidalgo’s declaration launched a decade-long struggle that ended 300 years of colonial rule, established an independent Mexico and helped cultivate a unique Mexican identity. Its anniversary is now celebrated as the country’s birthday.

Background to Mexican Independence 

The land that is now Mexico fell into Spanish hands in August 1521 when Hernán Cortés and his army of conquistadors toppled the Aztec empire, ushering in three centuries of colonial rule and importing new diseases that decimated once-flourishing native populations. Under orders from the Spanish king, Charles V, Cortés founded a capital city—Ciudad de Mexico—on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, and a series of viceroys took command of the territory, which was dubbed New Spain.

Did you know? Despite his traditional education for the priesthood, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla rejected or questioned many of Catholicism’s most fundamental tenets, including the Virgin birth, clerical celibacy and the existence of hell.

The earliest revolt against the Spanish colonial government was led by Martín Cortés, the illegitimate son of Hernán Cortés and his translator, a Mayan-born woman known as La Malinche. In the years leading up to the Mexican War of Independence, most plots to end Spanish rule were devised by Mexican-born Spaniards, or criollos , who ranked below native Europeans within Mexico’s highly stratified caste system. The criollos’ approach largely excluded Indigenous Mexicans and mestizos —people of mixed ancestry like Martín Cortés—who were often deprived of the most basic political and civil rights.

Mexican War of Independence

Napoleon’s invasion and occupation of Spain from 1808 to 1813 heightened the revolutionary fervor in Mexico and other Spanish colonies. On September 16, 1810, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, a respected Catholic priest (and an unconventional one, given his rejection of celibacy and love of gambling) issued a passionate rallying cry known as the “Grito de Dolores” (“Cry of Dolores”) that amounted to a declaration of war against the colonial government. So named because it was publicly read in the town of Dolores, the Grito called for the end of Spanish rule in Mexico, the redistribution of land and a concept that the criollos ’ earlier plans had deliberately omitted: racial equality. Though a criollo himself, Hidalgo extended his call to arms to mestizos and people of Indigenous descent; their significant contribution of manpower changed the tenor of the revolt.

Hidalgo led his growing militia from village to village en route to Mexico City, leaving in their wake a bloodbath that he later came to deeply regret. Defeated at Calderón in January 1811, Hidalgo fled north but was captured and executed by firing squad in Chihuahua . Others took the helm of the rebellion, including José María Morelos y Pavón, Mariano Matamoros and Vicente Guerrero, who all led armies of Indigenous and racially mixed revolutionaries against the Spanish royalists. Known as the Mexican War Of Independence, the conflict dragged on until 1821, when the Treaty of Córdoba established Mexico as an independent constitutional monarchy under Agustín de Iturbide. Just 18 months later, the republican insurgents Antonio López de Santa Anna and Guadalupe Victoria ousted the emperor and established the first Mexican Republic.

Celebrating Mexican Independence

Although September 16, 1810, marked the beginning of Mexico’s struggle for independence rather than its ultimate achievement, the anniversary of the Grito de Dolores has been a day of celebration across Mexico since the late 19th century. The holiday begins on the evening of September 15 with a symbolic reenactment of Hidalgo’s historic proclamation by the president of the republic and the governor of each state. The next day, typical activities include parades, bullfights, rodeos and traditional dancing. In 2010, the festivities included a special—if somewhat macabre—feature: In honor of the country’s bicentennial, the remains of 12 men who fought for Mexican independence—including Hidalgo, Morelos, Matamoros and Guerrero—were exhumed in a military ceremony led by President Felipe Calderón.

Many non-Mexicans, particularly in the United States, often mistake the Cinco de Mayo holiday for a celebration of Mexican independence; instead, it commemorates the Mexican army’s 1862 victory over France at the Battle of Puebla during the French-Mexican War.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Modern Latin America

Document #1: “Letter from Jamaica,” Simón Bolívar (1815)

In 1815, the fight for the independence of the Spanish colonies in Latin America was on the defensive. Simón Bolívar, a member of the Venezuelan planter class and a leading figure in the movement, was in exile. From the island of Jamaica, he issued a letter analyzing the current and future perspectives of the independence struggle. An admirer of the British parliamentary system, Bolívar argued for a balance of power in the different branches of government, although later he asserted strong executive rule while in power.

Reply of a South American to a Gentleman of this Island [Jamaica]

Kingston, Jamaica, September 6, 1815.

My dear Sir:

I hasten to reply to the letter of the 29th ultimo which you had the honor of sending me and which I received with the greatest satisfaction.

Sensible though I am of the interest you desire to take in the fate of my country, and of your commiseration with her for the tortures she has suffered from the time of her discovery until the present at the hands of her destroyers, the Spaniards, I am no less sensible of the obligation which your solicitous inquiries about the principal objects of American policy place upon me. Thus, I find myself in conflict between the desire to reciprocate your confidence, which honors me, and the difficulty of rewarding it, for lack of documents and books and because of my own limited knowledge of a land so vast, so varied, and so little known as the New World. In my opinion it is impossible to answer the questions that you have so kindly posed [. . .] because, although some of the facts about America and her development are known, I dare say the better part are shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, only conjectures that are more or less approximate can be made, especially with regard to her future and the true plans of the Americans, inasmuch as our continent has within it potentialities for every facet of development revealed in the history of nations, by reason of its physical characteristics and because of the hazards of war and the uncertainties of politics.

As I feel obligated to give due consideration to your esteemed letter and to the philanthropic intentions prompting it, I am impelled to write you these words, wherein you will certainly not find the brilliant thoughts you seek but rather a candid statement of my ideas.

“Three centuries ago,” you say, “began the atrocities committed by the Spaniards on this great hemisphere of Columbus.” Our age has rejected these atrocities as mythical, because they appear to be beyond the human capacity for evil. Modern critics would never credit them were it not for the many and frequent documents testifying to these horrible truths. The humane Bishop of Chiapas, that apostle of America, Las Casas, has left to posterity a brief description of these horrors, extracted from the trial records in Seville relating to the cases brought against the conquistadores . . . .  Every impartial person has admitted the zeal, sincerity, and high character of that friend of humanity, who so fervently and so steadfastly denounced to his government and to his contemporaries the most horrible acts of sanguinary frenzy.

With what a feeling of gratitude I read that passage in your letter in which you say to me: “I hope that the success which then followed Spanish arms may now turn in favor of their adversaries, the badly oppressed people of South America.” I take this hope as a prediction, if it is justice that determines man’s contests. Success will crown our efforts, because the destiny of America has been irrevocably decided; the tie that bound her to Spain has been severed. Only a concept maintained that tie and kept the parts of that immense monarchy together. That which formerly bound them now divides them. The hatred that the Peninsula has inspired in us is greater than the ocean between us. It would be easier to have the two continents meet than to reconcile the spirits of the two countries. The habit of obedience; a community of interest, of understanding, of religion; mutual goodwill; a tender regard for the birthplace and good name of our forefathers; in short, all that gave rise to our hopes, came to us from Spain. As a result there was born principle of affinity that seemed eternal, notwithstanding the misbehavior of our rulers, which weakened that sympathy, or, rather, that bond enforced by the domination of their rule.

At present the contrary attitude persists: we are threatened with the fear of death, dishonor, and every harm; there is nothing we have not suffered at the hands of that unnatural stepmother-Spain. The veil has been torn asunder. We have already seen the light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into darkness. The chains have been broken; we have been freed, and now our enemies seek to enslave us anew. For this reason America fights desperately, and seldom has desperation failed to achieve victory.

Because successes have been partial and spasmodic, we must not lose faith. In some regions the Independents triumph, while in others the tyrants have the advantage. What is the end result? Is not the entire New World in motion, armed for defense? We have but to look around us on this hemisphere to witness a simultaneous struggle at every point.

The war-like state of the La Plata River provinces has purged that territory and led their victorious armies to Upper Peru, arousing Arequipa and worrying the royalists in Lima. Nearly one million inhabitants there now enjoy liberty.

The territory of Chile, populated by 800,000 souls, is fighting the enemy who is seeking her subjugation; but to no avail, because those who long ago put an end to the conquests of this enemy, the free and indomitable Araucarias, are their neighbors and compatriots. Their sublime example is proof to those fighting in Chile that a people who love independence will eventually achieve it.

The viceroyalty of Peru, whose population approaches a million and a half inhabitants, without doubt suffers the greatest subjection and is obliged to make the most sacrifices for the royal cause; and, although the thought of cooperating with that part of America may be vain, the fact remains that it is not tranquil, nor is it capable of restraining the torrent that threatens most of its provinces.

New Granada, which is, so to speak, the heart of America, obeys a general government, save for the territory of Quito which is held only with the greatest difficulty by its enemies, as it is strongly devoted to the country’s cause; and the provinces of Panamá and Santa Marta endure, not without suffering, the tyranny of their masters. Two and a half million people inhabit New Granada and are actually defending that territory against the Spanish army under General Morillo, who will probably suffer defeat at the impregnable fortress of Cartagena. But should he take that city, it will be at the price of heavy casualties, and he will then lack sufficient forces to subdue the unrestrained and brave inhabitants of the interior.

With respect to heroic and hapless Venezuela, events there have moved so rapidly and the devastation has been such that it is reduced to frightful desolation and almost absolute indigence, although it was once among the fairest regions that are the pride of America. Its tyrants govern a desert, and they oppress only those unfortunate survivors who, having escaped death, lead a precarious existence. A few women, children, and old men are all that remain. Most of the men have perished rather than be slaves; those who survive continue to fight furiously on the fields and in the inland towns, until they expire or hurl into the sea those who, insatiable in their thirst for blood and crimes, rival those first monsters who wiped out America’s primitive race. Nearly a million persons formerly dwelt in Venezuela, and it is no exaggeration to say that one out of four has succumbed either to the land, sword, hunger, plague, flight, or privation, all consequences of the war, save the earthquake.

According to Baron von Humboldt, New Spain, including Guatemala, had 7,800,000 inhabitants in 1808. Since that time, the insurrection, which has shaken virtually all of her provinces, has appreciably reduced that apparently correct figure, for over a million men have perished, as you can see in the report of Mr. Walton, who describes faithfully the bloody crimes committed in that abundant kingdom. There the struggle continues by dint of human and every other type of sacrifice, for the Spaniards spare nothing that might enable them to subdue those who have had the misfortune of being born on this soil, which appears to be destined to flow with the blood of its offspring. In spite of everything, the Mexicans will be free. They have embraced the country’s cause, resolved to avenge their forefathers or follow them to the grave. Already they say with Raynal: The time has come at last to repay the Spaniards torture for torture and to drown that race of annihilators in its own blood or in the sea.

The islands of Puerto Rico and Cuba, with a combined population of perhaps 700,000 to 800,000 souls, are the most tranquil possessions of the Spaniards, because they are not within range of contact with the Independents. But are not the people of those islands Americans? Are they not maltreated? Do they not desire a better life?

This picture represents, on a military map, an area of 2,000 longitudinal and 900 latitudinal leagues at its greatest point, wherein 16,000,000 Americans either defend their rights or suffers repression at the hands of Spain, which, although once the world’s greatest empire, is now too weak, with what little is left her, to rule the new hemisphere or even to maintain herself in the old. And shall Europe, the civilized, the merchant, the lover of liberty allow an aged serpent, bent only on satisfying its venomous rage, devour the fairest part of our globe? What! Is Europe deaf to the clamor of her own interests? Has she no eyes to see justice? Has she grown so hardened as to become insensible? The more I ponder these questions, the more I am confused. I am led to think that America’s disappearance is desired; but this is impossible because all Europe is not Spain. What madness for our enemy to hope to reconquer America when she has no navy, no funds, and almost no soldiers! Those troops which she has are scarcely adequate to keep her own people in a state of forced obedience and to defend herself from her neighbors. On the other hand, can that nation carry on the exclusive commerce of one-half the world when it lacks manufactures, agricultural products, crafts and sciences, and even a policy? Assume that this mad venture were successful, and further assume that pacification ensued, would not the sons of the Americans of today, together with the sons of the European reconquistadores twenty years hence, conceive the same patriotic designs that are now being fought for?

Europe could do Spain a service by dissuading her from her rash obstinacy, thereby at least sparing her the costs she is incurring and the blood she is expending. And if she will fix her attention on her own precincts she can build her prosperity and power upon more solid foundations than doubtful conquests, precarious commerce, and forceful exactions from remote and powerful peoples. Europe herself, as a matter of common sense policy, should have prepared and executed the project of American independence, not alone because the world balance of power so necessitated, but also because this is the legitimate and certain means through which Europe can acquire overseas commercial establishments. A Europe that is not moved by the violent passions of vengeance, ambition, and greed, as is Spain, would seem to be entitled, by all the rules of equity, to make clear to Spain where her best interests lie.

All of the writers who have treated this matter agree on this point. Consequently, we have had reason to hope that the civilized nations would hasten to our aid in order that we might achieve that which must prove to be advantageous to both hemispheres. How vain has been this hope! Not only the Europeans but even our brothers of the North have been apathetic bystanders in this struggle which, by its very essence, is the most just, and in its consequences the most noble and vital of any which have been raised in ancient or in modern times. Indeed, can the far-reaching effects of freedom for the hemisphere that Columbus discovered ever be calculated?

“These several months,” you add, “I have given much thought to the situation in America and to her hopes for the future. I have a great interest in her development, but I lack adequate information respecting her present state and the aspirations of her people. I greatly desire to know about the politics of each province, also its peoples, and whether they desire a republic or a monarchy; or whether they seek to form one unified republic or a single monarchy? If you could supply me with this information or suggest the sources I might consult, I should deem it a very special favor.”

Generous souls always interest themselves in the fate of a people who strive to recover the rights to which the Creator and Nature have entitled them, and one must indeed be wedded to error and passion not to harbor this noble sentiment. You have given thought to my country and are concerned in its behalf, and for your kindness I am warmly grateful.

The role of the inhabitants of the American hemisphere has for centuries been purely passive. Politically they were nonexistent. We are still in a position lower than slavery, and therefore it is more difficult for us to rise to the enjoyment of freedom. Permit me these transgressions in order to establish the issue. States are slaves because of either the nature or the misuse of their constitutions; a people are therefore enslaved when the government, by its nature or its vices, infringes on and usurps the rights of the citizen or subject. Applying these principles, we find that America was denied not only its freedom but even an active and effective tyranny. Let me explain. Under absolutism there are no recognized limits to the exercise of governmental powers. The will of the great sultan, khan, bey, and other despotic rulers is the supreme law, carried out more or less arbitrarily by the lesser pashas, khans, and satraps of Turkey and Persia, who have an organized system of oppression in which inferiors participate according to the authority vested in them. To them is entrusted the administration of civil, military, political, religious, and tax matters. But, after all is said and done, the rulers of Isfahan are Persians; the viziers of the Grand Turk are Turks; and the sultans of Tartary are Tartars. China does not bring its military leaders and scholars from the land of Genghis Khan, her conqueror, notwithstanding that the Chinese of today are the lineal descendants of those who were reduced to subjection by the ancestors of the present-day Tartars.

How different is our situation! We have been harassed by a conduct which has not only deprived us of our rights but has kept us in a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs. If we could at least have managed our domestic affairs and our internal administration, we could have acquainted ourselves with the processes and mechanics of public affairs. We should also have enjoyed a personal consideration, thereby commanding a certain unconscious respect from the people, which is so necessary to preserve amidst revolutions. That is why I say we have even been deprived of an active tyranny, since we have not been permitted to exercise its functions.

Americans today, and perhaps to a greater extent than ever before, who live within the Spanish system occupy a position in society no better than that of serfs destined for labor, or at best they have no more status than that of mere consumers. Yet even this status is surrounded with galling restrictions, such as being forbidden to grow European crops, or to store products which are royal monopolies, or to establish factories of a type the Peninsula itself does not possess. To this add the exclusive trading privileges, even in articles of prime necessity, and the barriers between American provinces, designed to prevent all exchange of trade, traffic, and understanding. In short, do you wish to know what our future held? — Simply the cultivation of the fields of indigo, grain, coffee, sugar cane, cacao, and cotton; cattle raising on the broad plains; hunting wild game in the jungles; digging in the earth to mine its gold–but even these limitations could never satisfy the greed of Spain.

So negative was our existence that I can find nothing comparable in any other civilized society, examine as I may the entire history of time and the politics of all nations. Is it not an outrage and a violation of human rights to expect a land so splendidly endowed, so vast, rich, and populous, to remain merely passive?

As I have just explained, we were cut off and, as it were, removed from the world in relation to the science of government and administration of the state. We were never viceroys or governors, save in the rarest of instances; seldom archbishops and bishops; diplomats never; as military men, only subordinates; as nobles, without royal privileges. In brief, we were neither magistrates nor financiers and seldom merchants–all in flagrant contradiction to our institutions.

Emperor Charles V made a pact with the discoverers, conquerors, and settlers of America, and this, as Guerra puts it, is our social contract. The monarchs of Spain made a solemn agreement with them, to be carried out on their own account and at their own risk, expressly prohibiting them from drawing on the royal treasury. In return, they were made the lords of the land, entitled to organize the public administration and act as the court of last appeal, together with many other exemptions and privileges that are too numerous to mention. The King committed himself never to alienate the American provinces, inasmuch as he had no jurisdiction but that of sovereign domain. Thus, for themselves and their descendants, the conquistadores possessed what were tantamount to feudal holdings. Yet there are explicit laws respecting employment in civil, ecclesiastical, and tax-raising establishments. These laws favor, almost exclusively, the natives of the country who are of Spanish extraction. Thus, by an outright violation of the laws and the existing agreements, those born in America have been despoiled of their constitutional rights as embodied in the code.

The Americans have risen rapidly without previous knowledge of, and, what is more regrettable, without previous experience in public affairs, to enact upon the world stage the eminent roles of legislator, magistrate, minister of the treasury, diplomat, general, and every position of authority, supreme or subordinate, that comprises the hierarchy of a fully organized state.

Statue of Simón Bolívar in Paris

When the French invasion, stopped only by the walls of Cadiz, routed the fragile governments of the Peninsula, we were left orphans. Prior to that invasion, we had been left to the mercy of a foreign usurper. Thereafter, the justice due us was dangled before our eyes, raising hopes that only came to naught. Finally, uncertain of our destiny, and facing anarchy for want of a legitimate, just, and liberal government, we threw ourselves headlong into the chaos of revolution. Attention was first given to obtaining domestic security against enemies within our midst, and then it was extended to the procuring of external security. Authorities were set up to replace those we had deposed, empowered to direct the course of our revolution and to take full advantage of the fortunate turn of events; thus we were able to found a constitutional government worthy of our century and adequate to our situation.

Creating the Rule of Law:

The establishment of juntas of the people marks the first steps of all the new governments. These juntas speedily draft rules for the calling of congresses, which produce great changes. Venezuela erected a democratic and federal government, after declaring for the rights of man. A system of checks and balances was established, and general laws were passed granting civil liberties, such as freedom of the press and others. In short, an independent government was created. New Granada uniformly followed the political institutions and reforms introduced by Venezuela, taking as the fundamental basis of her constitution the most elaborate federal system ever to be brought into existence. Recently the powers of the chief executive have been increased, and he has been given all the powers that are properly his.

I understand that Buenos Aires and Chile have followed this same line of procedure, but, as the distance is so great and documents are so few and the news reports so unreliable, I shall not attempt even briefly to sketch their progress.

Events in Mexico have been too varied, confused, swift, and unhappy to follow clearly the course of that revolution. We lack, moreover, the necessary documentary information to enable us to form a judgment. The Independents of Mexico, according to our information, began their insurrection in September 1810, and a year later they erected a central government in Zitacuaro, where a national junta was installed under the auspices of Ferdinand VII, in whose name the government was carried on. The events of the war caused this junta to move from place to place; and, having undergone such modifications as events have determined, it may still be in existence.

It is reported that a generalissimo or dictator [ sic ] has been appointed and that he is the illustrious General Morelos, though others mention the celebrated General Rayón. It is certain that one or both of these two great men exercise the supreme authority in that country. And recently a constitution has been created as a framework of government. In March 1812 the government, then residing in Zultepec, submitted a plan for peace and war to the Viceroy of Mexico that had been conceived with the utmost wisdom. It acclaimed the law of nations and established principles that are true and beyond question. The junta proposed that the war be fought as between brothers and countrymen; that it need not be more cruel than a war between foreign nations; that the rules of nations and of war, held inviolable even by infidels and barbarians, must be more binding upon Christians, who are, moreover, subject to one sovereign and to the same laws; that prisoners not be treated as guilty of lèse majesté , nor those surrendering arms slain, but rather held as hostages for exchange; and that peaceful towns not be put to fire and sword. The junta concluded its proposal by warning that if this plan were not accepted rigorous reprisal would be taken. This proposal was received with scorn: no reply was made to the national junta. The original communications were publicly burned in the plaza in Mexico City by the executioner, and the Spaniards have continued the war of extermination with their accustomed fury; meanwhile, the Mexicans and the other American nations have refrained from instituting a war to the death respecting Spanish prisoners. Here it can be seen that as a matter of expediency an appearance of allegiance to the King and even to the Constitution of the monarchy has been maintained. The national junta , it appears, is absolute in the exercise of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers, and its membership is very limited.

Events in Costa Firme have proved that institutions which are wholly representative are not suited to our character, customs, and present knowledge. In Caracas party spirit arose in the societies, assemblies, and popular elections; these parties led us back into slavery. Thus, while Venezuela has been the American republic with the most advanced political institutions, she has also been the clearest example of the inefficacy of the democratic and federal system for our newborn states. In New Granada, the large number of excess powers held by the provincial governments and the lack of centralization in the general government have reduced that fair country to her present state. For this reason, her foes, though weak, have been able to hold out against all odds. As long as our countrymen do not acquire the abilities and political virtues that distinguish our brothers of the north, wholly popular systems, far from working to our advantage, will, I greatly fear, bring about our downfall. Unfortunately, these traits, to the degree in which they are required, do not appear to be within our reach. On the contrary, we are dominated by the vices that one learns under the rule of a nation like Spain, which has only distinguished itself in ferocity, ambition, vindictiveness, and greed.

[. . .] There is no reasonable probability to bolster our hopes.

More than anyone, I desire to see America fashioned into the greatest nation in the world, greatest not so much by virtue of her area and wealth as by her freedom and glory. Although I seek perfection for the government of my country, I cannot persuade myself that the New World can, at the moment, be organized as a great republic. Since it is impossible, I dare not desire it; yet much less do I desire to have all America a monarchy because this plan is not only impracticable but also impossible. Wrongs now existing could not be righted, and our emancipation would be fruitless. The American states need the care of paternal governments to heal the sores and wounds of despotism and war. The parent country, for example, might be Mexico, the only country fitted for the position by her intrinsic strength, and without such power there can be no parent country. Let us assume it were to be the Isthmus of Panamá, the most central point of this vast continent. Would not all parts continue in their lethargy and even in their present disorder? For a single government to infuse life into the New World; to put into use all the resources for public prosperity; to improve, educate, and perfect the New World, that government would have to possess the authority of a god, much less the knowledge and virtues of mankind.

The party spirit that today keeps our states in constant agitation would assume still greater proportions were a central power established, for that power–the only force capable of checking this agitation–would be elsewhere. Furthermore, the chief figures of the capitals would not tolerate the preponderance of leaders at the metropolis, for they would regard these leaders as so many tyrants. Their resentments would attain such heights that they would compare the latter to the hated Spaniards. Any such monarchy would be a misshapen colossus that would collapse of its own weight at the slightest disturbance.

Mr. de Pradt has wisely divided America into fifteen or seventeen mutually independent states, governed by as many monarchs. I am in agreement on the first suggestion, as America can well tolerate seventeen nations; as to the second, though it could easily be achieved, it would serve no purpose. Consequently, I do not favor American monarchies. My reasons are these: The well-understood interest of a republic is limited to the matter of its preservation, prosperity, and glory. Republicans, because they do not desire powers, which represent a directly contrary viewpoint, have no reason for expanding the boundaries of their nation to the detriment of their own resources, solely for the purpose of having their neighbors share a liberal constitution. They would not acquire rights or secure any advantage by conquering their neighbors, unless they were to make them colonies, conquered territory, or allies, after the example of Rome. But such thought and action are directly contrary to the principles of justice, which characterize republican systems; and, what is more, they are in direct opposition to the interests of their citizens, because a state, too large of itself or together with its dependencies, ultimately falls into decay. Its free govemment becomes a tyranny. The principles that should preserve the government are disregarded, and finally it degenerates into despotism. The distinctive feature of small republics is permanence: that of large republics varies, but always with a tendency toward empire. Almost all small republics have had long lives. Among the larger republics, only Rome lasted for several centuries, for its capital was a republic. The rest of her dominions were governed by given laws and institutions.

The policy of a king is very different. His constant desire is to increase his possessions, wealth, and authority; and with justification, for his power grows with every acquisition, both with respect to his neighbors and his own vassals, who fear him because his power is as formidable as his empire, which he maintains by war and conquest. For these reasons I think that the Americans, being anxious for peace, science, art, commerce, and agriculture, would prefer republics to kingdoms. And, further, it seems to me that these desires conform to the aims of Europe.

From the foregoing, we can draw these conclusions: The American provinces are fighting for their freedom, and they will ultimately succeed. Some provinces as a matter of course will form federal and some central republics; the larger areas will inevitably establish monarchies, some of which will fare so badly that they will disintegrate in either present or future revolutions. To consolidate a great monarchy will be no easy task, but it will be utterly impossible to consolidate a great republic.

It is a grandiose idea to think of consolidating the New World into a single nation, united by pacts into a single bond. It is reasoned that, as these parts have a common origin, language, customs, and religion, they ought to have a single government to permit the newly formed states to unite in a confederation. But this is not possible. Actually, climatic differences, geographic diversity, conflicting interests, and dissimilar characteristics separate America. How beautiful it would be if the Isthmus of Panamá could be for us what the Isthmus of Corinth was for the Greeks! Would to God that some day we may have the good fortune to convene there an august assembly of representatives of republics, kingdoms, and empires to deliberate upon the high interests of peace and war with the nations of the other three-quarters of the globe. This type of organization may come to pass in some happier period of our regeneration. But any other plan, such as that of Abbé St. Pierre, who in laudable delirium conceived the idea of assembling a European congress to decide the fate and interests of those nations, would be meaningless.

Among the popular and representative systems, I do not favor the federal system. It is over-perfect, and it demands political virtues and talents far superior to our own. For the same reason I reject a monarchy that is part aristocracy and part democracy, although with such a government England has achieved much fortune and splendor. Since it is not possible for us to select the most perfect and complete form of government, let us avoid falling into demagogic anarchy or monocratic tyranny. These opposite extremes would only wreck us on similar reefs of misfortune and dishonor; hence, we must seek a mean between them. I say: Do not adopt the best system of government, but the one that is most likely to succeed.

By the nature of their geographic location, wealth, population, and character, I expect that the Mexicans, at the outset, intend to establish a representative republic in which the executive will have great powers. These will be concentrated in one person, who, if he discharges his duties with wisdom and justice, should almost certainly maintain his authority for life. If through incompetence or violence he should excite a popular revolt and it should be successful, this same executive power would then, perhaps, be distributed among the members of an assembly. If the dominant party is military or aristocratic, it will probably demand a monarchy that would be limited and constitutional at the outset, and would later inevitably degenerate into an absolute monarchy; for it must be admitted that there is nothing more difficult in the political world than the maintenance of a limited monarchy. Moreover, it must also be agreed that only a people as patriotic as the English are capable of controlling the authority of a king and of sustaining the spirit of liberty under the rule of scepter and crown.

The states of the Isthmus of Panamá as far as Guatemala will perhaps form a confederation. Because of their magnificent position between two mighty oceans, they may in time become the emporium of the world. Their canals will shorten distances throughout the world, strengthen commercial ties between Europe, America, and Asia, and bring to that happy area tribute from the four quarters of the globe. There some day, perhaps, the capital of the world may be located-reminiscent of the Emperor Constantine’s claim that Byzantium was the capital of the ancient world.

New Granada will unite with Venezuela, if they can agree to the establishment of a central republic. Their capital may be Maracaibo or a new city to be named Las Casas (in honor of that humane hero) to be built on the borders of the two countries, in the excellent: port area of Bahía-Honda. This location, though little known, is the most advantageous in all respects. It is readily accessible, and its situation is so strategic that it can be made impregnable. It has a fine, healthful climate, a soil as suitable for agriculture as for cattleraising, and a superabundance of good timber. The Indians living there can be civilized, and our territorial possessions could be increased with the acquisition of the Guajira Peninsula. This nation should be called Colombia as a just and grateful tribute to the discoverer of our hemisphere. Its government might follow the English pattern, except that in place of a king there will be an executive who will be elected, at most, for life, but his office will never be hereditary, if a republic is desired. There will be a hereditary legislative chamber or senate. This body can interpose itself between the violent demands of the people and the great powers of the government during periods of political unrest. The second representative body will be a legislature with restrictions no greater than those of the lower house in England. The Constitution will draw on all systems of government, but I do not want it to partake of all their vices. As Colombia is my country, I have an indisputable right to desire for her that form of government, which, in my opinion, is best. It is very possible that New Granada may not care to recognize a central government, because she is greatly addicted to federalism; in such event, she will form a separate state, which, if it endures, may prosper, because of its great and varied resources.

Surely unity is what we need to complete our work of regeneration. The division among us, nevertheless, is nothing extraordinary, for it is characteristic of civil wars to form two parties, conservatives and reformers. The former are commonly the more numerous, because the weight of habit induces obedience to established powers; the latter are always fewer in number although more vocal and learned. Thus, the physical mass of the one is counterbalanced by the moral force of the other; the contest is prolonged, and the results are uncertain. Fortunately, in our case, the mass has followed the learned.

I shall tell you with what we must provide ourselves in order to expel the Spaniards and to found a free government. It is union , obviously; but such union will come about through sensible planning and well-directed actions rather than by divine magic. America stands together because it is abandoned by all other nations. It is isolated in the center of the world. It has no diplomatic relations, nor does it receive any military assistance; instead, America is attacked by Spain, which has more military supplies than any we can possibly acquire through furtive means.

When success is not assured, when the state is weak, and when results are distantly seen, all men hesitate; opinion is divided, passions rage, and the enemy fans these passions in order to win an easy victory because of them. As soon as we are strong and under the guidance of a liberal nation which will lend us her protection, we will achieve accord in cultivating the virtues and talents that lead to glory. Then will we march majestically toward that great prosperity for which South America is destined. Then will those sciences and arts which, born in the East, have enlightened Europe, wing their way to a free Colombia, which will cordially bid them welcome.

Such, Sir, are the thoughts and observations that I have the honor to submit to you, so that you may accept or reject them according to their merit. I beg you to understand that I have expounded them because I do not wish to appear discourteous and not because I consider myself competent to enlighten you concerning these matters. I am, Sir, etc., etc. SIMÓN BOLÍVAR

Translated by Lewis Bertrand in Selected Writings of Bolivar (New York: The Colonial Press Inc., 1951).

• What was the context in which this letter was written, and who was its intended audience?
• How does its content reflect social tensions inherent in the independence movements in Latin America?
• How did Bolívar see Latin America’s ideal future?

Latin America: The History of Changes Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

Introduction

Changes at different periods of time, works cited.

There are several changes that Latin America has experienced overtime like any other region in the world. The changes have occurred despite the challenges of corruption, inadequate resources, and violence among other detrimental issues.

The changes at different periods of time have been divided into eight periods that have contributed to Latin America’s history. The periods include:

The pre-colonial period, discovery and conquest period, colonial period, piracy age period, the period of independence from Spain, nineteenth century period, twentieth century period, and the modern period. The discussion of the periods enables one to have a deep understanding of the changes in Latin America since time immemorial.

The pre-colonial period

This is the period before 1492. Not much of the history of this period is known because during that specific period, less documentation of events occurred. The little history that exists reveals that many cultures existed and only a few cultures ruled and exercised their religions. All the other cultures adhered to the religion of undertaking agricultural activities, going for war, and worshiping.

Discovery and Conquest

This started in the year 1492. As depicted by the name of the period, many discoveries occurred as there was much sailing. In 1553, the cultures that used to dominate were civilized as a result of the discoveries.

Conquests also occurred in form of resistance to the European domination. Latin Americans, Spain, and Portugal who were the dominant populations resisted the rule of Europeans despite the powerful weapons used by the Europeans and their ruthlessness.

The colonial period

Latin America was tired of wars and other adverse calamities. The period of colonialism took place from around 1492 to around 1810. That period brought many changes and advancements to the current Latin America.

The original cultures were weakened and forbidden due to the low populations. Exploitation of the Latin Americans was rampant. Their powers were neglected by all means and their history was restructured. Latin Americans therefore fought for their identities and are doing so to the current times.

Piracy period

The period was dominated by piracy as a way of life. European powers were too much. The period occurred in the year 1700 to 1725. The conditions in this period gave residents a golden opportunity for piracy. Many pirates were killed and therefore, most people did not opt for it as a way of earning a living unless when the golden opportunity presented itself. The pirates had set rules to guide them.

The rules included honesty and accountability and the rules guided their activities. The consequence of not abiding by their rules was countered with punishment in the form of one being ostracized from the group. The pirates were made up of all social classes.

The period of Independence from Spain

The period occurred when Spain was invaded by Napoleon and conquered. Latin America got independence between 1810 and 1825 because of its strong leadership then. During this period, Spain was weak because it had divided itself into colonies.

Nineteenth century period

In 1824, Latin America gained independence. It passed through several challenges of learning and adjustment to govern itself. Wars occurred as the people adjusted in their attempts to enhance prosperity (Edwards, 12).All the nations in Latin America experienced war except Argentina which had adopted its own constitution invented by Juan Bautista.

He was a critical and creative thinker of the period. He enabled Argentina to be stable and peaceful during the time of conflicts and during other related struggles. The nations that borrowed his ideologies enshrined in the Argentinean Constitution also became stable.

Twentieth century period

Many revolutions occurred. The most prominent war during this period was the “Thousand days war”. The war took place in Columbia from the year 1899 to the year 1902. The root cause of the war was the existence of both the liberals and the conservatives.

The individuals with liberal ideologies supported the changes that accompanied the independence while the conservative individuals rejected the changes brought about by the independence. The conflicts brought about some adverse effects in the all the nations of Latin America. Many people died. Rivalry, violence, and hatred dominated the nations of Latin America during this period.

Modern period

The period had several revolutions in the key sectors of industrialization, education, health care, and land reforms. Many industries came in to existence and the few that existed began to enhance their operations (Rangel, 4).

The education and health sectors improved in their operations to include both the poor and the rich residents. The revolution made the sectors affordable, accessible, culturally acceptable, and sensitive to needs of the nation. Modernization in the form of transportation and infrastructure also advanced.

In conclusion, the changes that have taken place in Latin America are responsible for the rapid development of Latin America. The development in the domains of the economy, society, politics, and law is attributed to the continued inventions by the people of Latin America and their aggressive attempts to fight for their existence.

Edwards, Sebastian . Left Behind: Latin America and the False Promise of Populism , Chicago, USA: University of Chicago Press, 2010.Print.

Rangel, Carlos. The Latin Americans: Their Love-Hate Relationship with the United States , New York, USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1977.Print.

• How is Narco-Governance Related to Political Liberalism?
• History: "A Brazilian Slave of the 18 Century" by J. F. Furtado
• Analysis of The Age of Change: Bolivar’s Plans
• European Knowledge of the New World State Prior to 1492
• The Process of Mexican Independence
• Nationalism Does Not Form a Single Fraternal Community
• Abolition of Slavery in Brazil
• Andres de Santa Cruz and the Peru-Bolivia Confederation
• Santa Cruz and Peru-Bolivia Confederation
• Silver In Spanish America
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2019, June 27). Latin America: The History of Changes. https://ivypanda.com/essays/latin-american-history/

"Latin America: The History of Changes." IvyPanda , 27 June 2019, ivypanda.com/essays/latin-american-history/.

IvyPanda . (2019) 'Latin America: The History of Changes'. 27 June.

IvyPanda . 2019. "Latin America: The History of Changes." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/latin-american-history/.

1. IvyPanda . "Latin America: The History of Changes." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/latin-american-history/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Latin America: The History of Changes." June 27, 2019. https://ivypanda.com/essays/latin-american-history/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

• Basic site functions
• Ensuring secure, safe transactions
• Secure account login
• Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
• Remembering privacy and security settings
• Analyzing site traffic and usage
• Personalized search, content, and recommendations
• Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

• Remembering general and regional preferences
• Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

• History & Society
• Science & Tech
• Biographies
• Animals & Nature
• Geography & Travel
• Arts & Culture
• Games & Quizzes
• On This Day
• One Good Fact
• New Articles
• Lifestyles & Social Issues
• Philosophy & Religion
• Politics, Law & Government
• World History
• Health & Medicine
• Browse Biographies
• Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
• Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
• Environment
• Fossils & Geologic Time
• Entertainment & Pop Culture
• Sports & Recreation
• Visual Arts
• Demystified
• Image Galleries
• Infographics
• Top Questions
• Britannica Kids
• Saving Earth
• Space Next 50
• Student Center
• Introduction
• The indigenous world and the word “Indian”
• Sedentary peoples
• Semisedentary peoples
• Nonsedentary peoples
• Ethnic diversity and its results
• The overseas tradition
• Indians and Spaniards
• A new Spanish subculture
• Conquest of Mexico
• Conquest of Peru
• The central-area encomienda
• Spanish women
• Indians among Spaniards
• Institutional, legal, and intellectual developments
• Trunk lines
• Postconquest indigenous society
• The central areas in the mature period
• The Spanish fringe
• The early period
• The sugar age
• Economy and society
• The Caribbean islands
• The Bourbon reforms
• Brazil after 1700
• Preindependence phenomena
• The independence of Latin America
• The southern movement in South America
• The north and the culmination of independence
• Mexico and Central America
• Constitutions
• Disorder and caudillismo
• Economic obstacles
• Mobility and hierarchy
• Social institutions
• Political and economic transitions, 1850–70
• Export economies
• Capitalism and social transitions
• Oligarchies in power

World war and world trade

The emerging force of nationalism, population and social change.

• The Mexican Revolution
• Broadening of political participation
• Expanding role of the state
• Socialism, communism, fascism
• Good Neighbor Policy and World War II
• Economic agenda and patterns of growth
• Developments in social policy
• The United States and Latin America in the Cold War era
• Impact of the Cuban Revolution
• Movement toward democracy
• The advent of populism
• Christian Democracy
• Bureaucratic authoritarianism
• Debt crisis
• Return to democracy
• A shift to neoliberalism
• Religious trends
• A changing society

• Who was Simón Bolívar?
• What was Simón Bolívar’s early life like?
• What role did Simón Bolívar play in the Latin American independence movement?
• Why was Simón Bolívar called “The Liberator?”
• How did Simón Bolívar die?

New order emerging, 1910–45

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

• PBS - Black in Latin America - Black in Latin America's Henry Louis Gates
• Latin America - Children's Encyclopedia (Ages 8-11)
• Latin America - Student Encyclopedia (Ages 11 and up)
• Table Of Contents

The advances in economic growth and political stabilization that were evident in most of Latin America by the early 20th century came up against an array of challenges as the century wore on. The forward momentum was not necessarily lost—although Mexico experienced negative economic growth along with great political turmoil during the first decade of the Mexican Revolution beginning in 1910—but some partial changes of direction occurred, and new problems kept emerging. The challenges were of both internal and external origin, ranging from steady population increase for the region as a whole to the consequences of Latin America’s ever-closer incorporation into the world economy. The external factors are generally easier to identify, if only because of the suddenness of their impact.

Economic and social developments

Recent news.

Few Latin Americans felt strong emotional identification with either of the contending alliances in World War I (1914–18), except for the immigrant communities in southern South America and the ranks of generally Francophile liberal intellectuals . Of the major countries, only Brazil followed the example of the United States in declaring war on Germany, while Mexico and Argentina , which respectively saw the United States as a bullying neighbour and a hemispheric rival, vied for a leadership role in behalf of Latin American neutrality. Yet all countries were affected by the wartime disruption of trade and capital flows, particularly those that had in recent years most successfully penetrated European markets with their own exports and become important consumers of European goods and financial services. Argentina was an obvious example. The outbreak of war brought a sharp decline in its trade as the Allied powers diverted shipping elsewhere and Germany became inaccessible. Although exports soon recovered, mainly in the form of meat to feed Allied troops, imported manufactures were scarce because overseas factories were devoted to war production, and scarcity drove up prices.

Wartime disruptions were only temporary, and they gave way to a frenzied boom in the immediate postwar period as Latin American exporters cashed in on pent-up demand in the former warring powers. An extreme case was the “dance of the millions” in Cuba , where the price of sugar reached a peak of 23 cents per pound in 1920, only to fall back to 3.5 cents within the space of a few months, as European production of beet sugar returned to normal. Similar postwar booms and busts occurred elsewhere, even if less sharply, and demonstrated some of the hazards of Latin America’s increasing dependence on the world economy. Those hazards were underscored again by the costly program Brazil felt compelled to undertake to support the price of coffee , buying up surplus production and keeping it off the market. First tried in 1906 and briefly repeated during the war, this “ valorization ” policy was reinstated during the 1920s in the face of persistent weakness of the world coffee price. Yet one reason for the latter was the expansion of cultivation in other Latin American countries, above all Colombia , which by the end of World War I had emerged as the second leading producer—encouraged by, among other things, the Brazilian price support efforts.

Conditions in the world market were in the last analysis unfavourable for Latin America’s terms of trade , since demand for most of the primary commodities that the region specialized in was not keeping pace with the growth of production. Nevertheless, the decade of the 1920s was generally a period of economic growth and renewed optimism. All countries continued to pursue an outward-directed growth strategy insofar as they pursued a conscious strategy at all, placing few impediments in the way of import-export trade. Foreign investment also resumed on a massive scale and now came chiefly from the United States, whose stake rose to $5.4 billion in 1929 as against $1.6 billion in 1914. New capital flowed both into productive activities, like the Venezuelan petroleum industry (controlled by U.S., British, and Dutch interests and by the late 1920s the world’s leading exporter though not producer), and into loans made by Wall Street bankers to Latin American governments.

The growing importance of foreign capital inevitably provoked a nationalist backlash, which reinforced the cultural nationalism already strong among groups of intellectuals and the anti-imperialist sentiment provoked by U.S. intervention around the Caribbean and in Mexico. Cultural nationalism was associated above all with conservatives who cherished the Iberian heritage as a shield against corrupting Anglo-Saxon influences, while the leading anti-imperialist spokesmen tended to be leftist. Incipient left-wing parties and labour unions were also in the forefront of economic nationalism, because, among other reasons, foreign-owned firms provided a more popular target than local enterprises. British nitrate investors in Chile thus faced serious labour unrest, as did the Boston-based United Fruit Company , hit by a violent strike in late 1928 in the Colombian banana zone. Petroleum investors in Mexico faced serious labour unrest in addition to a simmering conflict with the government itself over the control of subsoil resources, which the new constitution of 1917 had declared exclusive property of the nation.

A further escalation of economic nationalism came with the world economic depression of 1929 and after, though more as a defensive reaction than as a conscious policy. For Latin America, the depression put an abrupt end to the inflow of foreign capital and at the same time brought a drastic decline in the price of the region’s exports, which in turn reduced the capacity to import and the governments’ revenues from customs duties. At one point, a pound of Cuban sugar was selling for less than the U.S. tariff on the sugar. In response to the crisis, Latin American countries raised their own tariffs and imposed other restrictions on foreign trade . Even if the immediate purpose was conservation of scarce foreign exchange rather than the theoretical goal of increasing economic independence, the result was a decided impetus to domestic manufacturing, whose beneficiaries later appealed to nationalist sentiments to preserve the gains made. In Colombia, textile production increased during the 1930s at a faster rate than in England during the Industrial Revolution , despite the fact that the government continued to see protection of the coffee industry as its primary economic mission. But manufacturing made important gains in almost all the larger Latin American nations, which already before the depression had begun the development of an industrial base. It remains to be said, however, that, except for Mexico with its well-established iron and steel industry, manufacturing still consisted almost wholly of consumer goods production.

On another front, to save available jobs for native inhabitants, numerous countries adopted measures during the depression that required a given percentage of a company’s employees to be citizens. In Brazil, for similar reasons, tight restrictions were imposed on the flow of immigrants. Even without restrictions, however, and despite the fact that some countries recovered quickly from the effects of the depression, Latin America in the 1930s was simply not as attractive to immigrants as before.

In some countries the life of most inhabitants seemed little changed in 1945, at the end of World War II , from what it had been in 1910. This was the case in Paraguay , still overwhelmingly rural and isolated, and Honduras , except for its coastal banana enclave. Even in Brazil, the sertão , or semiarid backcountry, was barely affected by changes in the coastal cities or in the fast-growing industrial complex of São Paulo . But in Latin America as a whole more people were becoming linked to the national and world economies, introduced to rudimentary public education, and exposed to emerging mass media .

Even in Argentina, Brazil, and Cuba, where the number of immigrants had been significant up to the depression—in Cuba’s case, from the neighbouring West Indies and, above all, from Spain— population growth was mainly from natural increase. It was still not explosive, for, while birth rates in most countries remained high, death rates had not yet been sharply reduced by advances in public health . But it was steady, the total Latin American population rising from roughly 60 million in 1900 to 155 million at mid-century. The urban proportion had reached about 40 percent, though with great differences among countries. The Argentine population was approximately half urban by the eve of World War I, fewer hands being required to produce the nation’s wealth in the countryside than to process it in the cities and provide other essential urban services. In the Andean countries and Central America , however, urban dwellers were a decided minority even at the end of World War II. Moreover, the usual pattern was that of a single primate city vastly overshadowing lesser urban centres. In Uruguay in the early 1940s, Montevideo alone had 800,000 inhabitants, or over one-third of the nation’s total, while its closest rival contained about 50,000. Yet even that was as many as lived in Tegucigalpa , the capital of Honduras.

Latin America’s population is less easy to classify in terms of social composition . Rural workers still made up the largest single group, but those loosely referred to as “peasants” could be anything from minifundistas , or independent owners of small private parcels, to seasonal hired hands of large plantations; with different degrees of autonomy and different linkages to national and world markets, they were far from a cohesive social sector. What such rural workers most clearly had in common was grossly inadequate access to health and education services and a low material standard of living . A socioeconomic and cultural gulf separated them from traditional large landowners as well as from the owners or managers of commercial agribusinesses.

In the cities an industrial working class was more and more in evidence, at least in the larger countries, where the size of the internal market made industrialization feasible even with low average purchasing power. However, factory workers did not necessarily form the most important urban sector, to some extent because the growth of cities had been more rapid than that of the manufacturing industry. São Paulo in Brazil and Monterrey in Mexico won fame chiefly as centres of industry, but more typical was the case of Montevideo, a commercial and administrative centre first and foremost that attracted the lion’s share of the country’s industry because of its preexisting leadership in population and services rather than the other way around. Moreover, port, transportation, and service workers—or miners, as in the Chilean nitrate fields—rather than factory workers usually led the way in union organization and strike actions. One reason was the high proportion of women workers in early factories, who, though even more exploited than male workers, were perceived by radical activists as less-promising recruits than stevedores or locomotive firemen.

In urban settings the most important social development in the short run was the steady expansion of middling white-collar and professional groups. The extent to which these can be termed a “middle class” is open to question, for, while “middle” by the economic indicators of property and income, they were often ambivalent about their place in society—uncertain whether to embrace the work and savings ethic conventionally associated with the middle class of the Western world (or, later, of East Asia) or to try to emulate traditional elites. The middle sectors were, in any case, the chief beneficiaries of the expansion of educational facilities, which they strongly supported and used as means of upward mobility. Urban workers, for their part, had access to primary education but rarely secondary; at least they were now mainly literate, whereas most rural Latin Americans still were not.

Lack of formal education had long reinforced the relative isolation of the peasantry from political currents at their nations’ centres, not to mention from new fads and notions from abroad. Yet, starting in the 1920s, the rapid spread of the new medium of radio throughout Latin America exposed even illiterate people to an emerging mass culture . Additions to transportation infrastructure also contributed to greater integration of isolated population clusters. The most essential rail lines had already taken shape by 1910, but the coming of automotive transport led to a major upgrading and extension of highways, and the airplane introduced an entirely new mode of transportation. One of the oldest airlines in the world is Colombia’s Avianca , whose founding (under a different name) in 1919 was of particular importance for a country where railroad and highway building had lagged because of difficult topography . Air travel similarly played a key role in knitting together far-flung sections of Brazil previously connected by coastal steamer. Transport improvements of all kinds favoured the creation not only of national markets but of shared national cultures , in the latter respect reinforcing the effects of popular education and radio.

• United Kingdom

Latinxs Must Show Up For Haitian Migrants

Haiti Aided Latin American Independence Movements; Latinxs Are Returning The Favor With Silence & Broken Promises

More from politics.

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Latin American Philosophy

In its most expansive sense, Latin American philosophy is philosophy produced in Latin America or philosophy produced by persons of Latin American ancestry who reside outside of Latin America. It is typically taken to exclude philosophy produced in non-Iberian former colonies, with the occasional exception of former French colonies in the Caribbean. Other names have also been used to refer to the whole or part of Latin American philosophy, including Spanish American, Hispanic American, Iberoamerican, and Latino/a philosophy. The first two refer specifically to the philosophy of former Spanish colonies, the third to that of former Iberian colonies, and the fourth to the philosophy produced in the United States by descendants of Latin Americans.

Latin American philosophy is usually taken to have originated around 1550, when Spanish conquerors founded the first schools in Latin America and began to teach and publish philosophical treatises. Recently, there has been an effort on the part of historians to include pre-Columbian thought in Latin American philosophy, although the pre-Columbian texts cited are often fragmentary and religious in tone and intention. In terms of traditions, style, and influence, post-Columbian Latin American philosophy is part of the Western philosophical tradition. Indeed, philosophical discussions in Latin America have and continue to be dominated by European philosophical influences. Even those Latin American philosophers who have endeavored to develop original theories have frequently framed their own contributions in the terms of European thinkers. Partly in response to this phenomenon, there has arisen a large body of literature concerned with the identity, authenticity, and originality of Latin American philosophy.

Latin American philosophy has been both original and derivative. Much of its history involves work that is derivative of European philosophical figures and movements. At the same, time Latin American philosophy has produced important philosophers, original approaches to old philosophical problems, and formulations of new problems not already within the European philosophical tradition. Moreover, virtually all historical European philosophical traditions have been present in Latin America, as are most contemporary movements in the United States and Europe. Finally, there has been a significant interest in social concerns among Latin American philosophers, partly as a reaction to the social and economic circumstances of Latin America. This has led Latin American philosophical work to be comparatively more concerned with social issues than philosophy in, for example, the United States.

The influence of Latin American philosophy outside of Latin America has thus far been relatively small. Although the situation has been improving, very few Latin American philosophers are currently read outside of Latin America. This situation is made worse by the paucity of English-language translations of Latin American philosophical works. Moreover, internal to Latin America, philosophers read and respond to each other with less frequency than one might expect or wish. However, the philosophy of liberation has had some impact both in North America and in developing countries in Africa, and Latinos/as have participated actively in the discussion of a variety of topics, especially those having to do with race, ethnicity, and social identities in the United States. In the past few years, some of these philosophers have occupied positions of leadership in the philosophical establishment and their work has been the subject of discussion by prominent non-Latino/a philosophers.

This article is divided into three main parts: history, the contemporary period, and problems and topics. We begin with a sketch of the history of Latin American philosophy.

2.1 Rebellion and the Generation of Founders (1910–1940)

2.2 normalcy and the generation of 1910 (1940–1960), 2.3 maturity (1960–present), 3.1 the rights of amerindians, 3.2 the identity of the people, 3.3 philosophical anthropology, 3.4 latin america’s philosophical identity.

• 3.5 Feminist Philosophy

Other Internet Resources

Related entries.

The history of Latin American philosophy is usefully divided into five periods: Pre-Columbian, Colonial, Independentist, Nationalist, and Contemporary (that is, the twentieth century to the present). Most periods are characterized by the dominance of a particular tradition: the Pre-Columbian by Amerindian religious cosmologies, the Colonial by scholasticism, the Independentist by Early Modern philosophy and Enlightenment thought, and the Nationalist by positivism. However, the contemporary situation is more complex and varied. For that reason, it is discussed in a separate and subsequent section, apart from the other historical periods that are the focus of this section.

There is good evidence that in at least the major pre-Columbian civilizations there were attempts to explore questions about the nature of reality, the limits of knowledge, and the basis of right action. Moreover, such work persisted in various forms for some time after the Conquest (Restrepo 2010; Maffie 2014). Whether this body of work is rightly characterized as philosophy or something else is a disputed matter, with scholars disagreeing about how best to characterize it (see Nuccetelli, 2001, ch. 3; Mignolo, 2003). It is clear that the reflective and speculative work of pre-Columbian Amerindian peoples was undertaken without any familiarity with the Western philosophical tradition. Those inquiries were also generally undertaken within the religious frameworks of their places and times and the literary or presentational modes in which such questions were entertained were typically removed from traditional forms of European philosophical production.

Despite these differences with European philosophy, and despite the often fragmentary and frequently second-hand information that survives concerning pre-Columbian thought, extant works have nevertheless supported a variety of intriguing and subtle accounts of those philosophical or proto-philosophical reflections. [ 1 ] Still, the conventional view about the pre-Columbian period is that its reflections had little to no impact on the indisputably philosophical intellectual production in the period that immediately followed the Conquest. [ 2 ]

European-derived philosophy began in Latin America in the sixteenth century. Among the most notable figures of this period is Bartolomé de Las Casas (1484–1566), whose work on the rights of conquered Amerindians has had a particularly important and long-lasting legacy. Scholasticism, introduced by the Spanish and Portuguese clergy that arrived with the conquistadores, was the dominant philosophical perspective. Most of the work produced during the first two centuries in the colonies was cast in the framework used in the Iberian peninsula. It was particularly indebted to the thought of both sixteenth-century Iberians and their medieval predecessors. Important figures included Francisco Suárez (1548–1617) and Francisco de Vitoria (1492–1546), and earlier medieval philosopher-theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) and John Duns Scotus (1265/6–1308). Most of these authors were born in the Iberian peninsula, but many of them had settled in the colonies. Among the most important, apart from Las Casas, are Alonso de la Vera Cruz (ca. 1504–84), who composed the first fully philosophical treatises in Latin America, Tomás de Mercado (ca. 1530–1575), and Antonio Rubio (1548–1615). Some of the works of these authors, such as Rubio’s Logica mexicana, were known and used in Europe.

Humanism also had some influence, as is clear from the work of Juan de Zumárraga (ca.1468–1548) and Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz (1651–1695), among others. Sor Juana has the distinction of being the first Latin American thinker to raise questions concerning the status of women in Latin American society. She is also retrospectively regarded as the first Latin American feminist writer and philosopher (see also the section on feminist philosophy, below.)

The eighteenth century, under the influence of modern philosophy and the Enlightenment, helped prepare the way for the revolutionary wars of independence. Philosophical discussions of the time were dominated by political thought. Even so, scholasticism continued to influence the intellectual class and stoked an ongoing interest in traditional metaphysical questions. Authors such as Juan Benito Díaz de Gamarra y Dávalos (1745–1783) and Francisco Javier Clavijero (1731–1787), both from Mexico, were influenced by early modern philosophers such as René Descartes (1596–1650). However, the wave of independentist thought found its greatest inspiration in Enlightenment political philosophy. In particular, liberal political ideals based on the thought of the French philosophes helped to consolidate independentist views throughout Latin America. Among the significant Latin American inheritors of that tradition were Simón Bolívar (1783–1830) in Venezuela and Colombia, Miguel Hidalgo (1753–1811) and José María Morelos (1765–1815) in Mexico, and much later, José Martí (1854–1895) in Cuba.

In the early 19th century, many Latin American countries secured independence from European colonial powers. In the wake of independence, the newly liberated peoples faced the challenge of forming stable, enduring nations out of the remnants of the Spanish and Portuguese empires. The predominant political concerns of that era included the organization and consolidation of the new nations, along with aspirations for social stability, national integration of largely diverse peoples. The overarching ambition in many nations was to achieve the same economic and social progress enjoyed by other nations in Europe and North America.

In this context, the ideology of choice was a version of positivism. The positivist motto, “order and progress,” which graces the Brazilian flag, suggests why positivism was especially appealing in the context of nation building. Positivism’s emphasis on both empirical science and pragmatic solutions appeared to provide a practical foundation for attaining the diverse ends of the new nations. Indeed, positivism became so influential and widely accepted by intellectuals that it became the official state philosophy of several nations. It was even used to justify dictatorial regimes, as in the case of Mexico.

Positivism of the Latin American variety was derived from a peculiar mix of European ideas primarily originating in the thought of Auguste Comte (1798–1857), Herbert Spencer (1820–1903), and Ernst Haeckel (1834–1919). The period of positivist hegemony, in which it was the dominant philosophical perspective in Latin America, extended roughly from the middle of the nineteenth century to the first decade of the twentieth. Among the most famous positivists were Gabino Barreda (1818–1881) and Justo Sierra (1848–1912) in Mexico, José Victorino Lastarria (1817–1888) in Chile, and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (1811–1888) in Argentina. Andrés Bello (1781–1865), from both Venezuela and Chile, and Juan Bautista Alberdi (1810–1884) and Esteban Echevarría (1805–1851), from Argentina, were transitional figures between independentist liberal thought and positivism. Later, José Ingenieros (1877–1925), from Argentina, and Enrique José Varona (1849–1933), from Cuba, prepared the way for the revolt against positivism, although their thought arose in a positivist context and maintained an alliance with positivist ideas.

2. The Contemporary Period

Contemporary Latin American philosophy begins in the twentieth century, around 1910, coinciding with the decline of positivism. By 1930, the remaining positivists in Latin America were usually regarded as museum pieces rather than proponents of a viable philosophy meriting serious attention. The contemporary, post-positivist period can be divided into three distinct sub-periods. The first— rebellion —is characterized by the backlash against positivism and the subsequent development of foundations for future philosophical movements (ca.1910–1940). The second— normalcy —is characterized by the achievement of a degree of institutionalization and normalization in the philosophical profession (1940–1960). The third period— maturity (ca. 1960 to the present)—is distinguished by the degree of professional and philosophical maturity attained by Latin American philosophers.

The anti-positivist rebellion constitutes the first phase of contemporary Latin American thought. It was brought about by a generation of philosophers born around 1910, all of whom were trained as positivists, before breaking with it. The principal members of this generation—called “the generation of founders” by Francisco Romero, and dubbed “the generation of patriarchs” by Francisco Miró Quesada—are well known: Alejandro Korn (1860–1936) in Argentina, Alejandro Octavio Deústua (1849–1945) in Peru, José Vasconcelos (1882–1959) and Antonio Caso (1883–1946) in Mexico, Enrique José Molina (1871–1956) in Chile, Carlos Vaz Ferreira (1872–1958) in Uruguay, and Raimundo de Farias Brito (1862–1917) in Brazil.

The adoption of ideas from France, and later from Germany, was instrumental in formulating the basis for rejecting positivism. It began with the influence of Emile Boutroux (1845–1921), Henri Bergson (1859–1941), and French vitalism and intuitionism. It was cemented when the Spaniard José Ortega y Gasset visited Latin America in 1916 and introduced the thought of Max Scheler (1874–1928), Nicolai Hartmann (1882–1950), and other German philosophers. Ortega y Gasset and the German philosophy of the spirit had substantial influence on the generation that followed that of the founders, called by Miró Quesada “the generation of forgers.” Samuel Ramos (1897–1959), from Mexico, Francisco Romero (1891–1962), from Argentina, Alceu Amoroso Lima (1893–1982), from Brazil, and José Carlos Mariátegui (1894–1930), from Peru, among others, followed the founders’ course, attacking positivist ideas and favoring in some instances a rather poetic philosophical style that contrasts with the scientistic emphasis of positivism. They completed the process initiated by the founders and laid the foundations of future developments.

One of the main preoccupations of the founders and the generation that followed them was the absorption of European ideas; they wanted to be philosophically up to date. In contrast with the objectives of the philosophers that preceded them, which were for the most part religious (during the colonial period), political (during the period of independence), or economic (during the nationalist period), the concern of these thinkers was more systematically philosophical in motivation. This was a significant change in Latin American philosophy, insofar as scholasticism, Enlightenment liberalism, and positivism were typically undertaken (at least in Latin American) for purposes frequently disconnected from a conception of philosophy in which the discipline was pursued for its own sake. For scholastics, the primary objective was the apologetic defense of the faith; for liberals, the end was political emancipation; and for positivists, the goal was national integration and economic and social progress. In all three cases, European ideas were typically adopted with pre-established ends in mind. As a consequence, philosophical movements were not obviously the products of philosophical concerns as such.

In contrast to prior generations, the founders and those who followed them did not tend to adopt European ideas with a view to the defense of a body of doctrine, or in order to achieve certain practical ends of political liberation or of national unity and economic and social progress. Their ideas arose from philosophical dissatisfactions with positivism. Thus, we find in the writings of Caso, Deústua, and the other founders who rebelled against positivism, purely philosophical criticisms of that perspective. They were concerned, for example, with freedom and the fact that determinism, which they considered undesirable, was a necessary corollary of positivism. Still, their attitude toward the ideas they adopted was seldom critical. They saw the defects of positivism, but too often they still accepted uncritically the solutions they borrowed from non-positivist European philosophers to fight it.

Although the founders and some of their immediate successors had attained some emancipation in the philosophical enterprise, full maturity remained elusive. Still, the sophistication of some thinkers, such as Korn, was considerable and planted the critical seeds that germinated in the following period.

It is not until the generation born around 1910 reached maturity in the 1940s that a self-critical spirit clearly entered Latin American philosophy. A state of normalcy became established in most countries of Latin America, and what might be called Latin-Americanism grew significantly. The limitations on originality characteristic of previous generations were in part the result of the lack of self-criticism and the practical difficulties involved in pursuing a philosophical career in Latin America. The contribution of those generations was largely restricted to the importation of foreign thought; originality in substantive doctrine was rarely achieved, or even an ambition.

There were exceptions, of course. Romero, for example, in his Theory of Man (1952) , developed an original philosophical anthropology. However, philosophers and philosophical practice was not “normalized,” as Romero put it, until the emergence of the subsequent generation philosophers. That group included Risieri Frondizi (1910–1985), Eduardo García Maynez (1908–1993), Miguel Reale (1910–2006), Francisco Miró Quesada (1918–), Leopoldo Zea (1912–2004), and Juan Llambías de Azevedo (1907–1972).

This group was the first generation of Latin American philosophers to benefit from formal education in philosophy. Previous philosophers had been mostly self-taught, typically trained in another profession, but taking up philosophy out of personal interest. The structural changes in the academy introduced by the Founders and the generation that followed made it possible for an entire generation to be trained by philosophers at the university.

Another important general feature of this period of Latin American philosophy was that the incipient Latin-Americanism of the previous generation developed and flourished. This change became evident with the philosophers born around 1910 and those who followed them. Several philosophers of this generation readily traveled throughout Latin America and establishing dialogue with other Latin Americans. This is not to say that Latin-Americanism in philosophy was very robust. Even today, lack of region-wide philosophical dialogue remains more common than not, and communities of discourse tend to be more local or national than international. Still, philosophical communication within Latin America markedly increased during this period.

One of the factors that helped the development of philosophy was the increasing consciousness of a distinctly Latin American philosophical identity, of a sense that there was something different or distinctive about Latin American philosophy. In part, this was a result of growing consciousness of the increasing importance of Latin America in the world and, on the philosophical side, of the introduction in Latin America of Ortega’s perspectivism. By the time of Samuel Ramos and Leopoldo Zea, the Founders’ preoccupation with the existence of an autochthonous Latin American philosophy gave rise to a controversy about whether and how it existed. This debate was one in which practically all important philosophers of the period participated. In turn, this debate provided impetus to the study and dissemination of the philosophical work of Latin American thinkers throughout the region.

Notable work in this vein includes Aníbal Sánchez Reulet’s (1910–1997) groundbreaking work, published in Tierra Firme in 1936 and entitled “Panorama de las ideas filosóficas en Hispanoamérica.” Subsequent work by Zea on positivism in Mexico, written in the early 1940s, as well as Ramos’ historical study of Mexican philosophy took up the thread, as did Ramón Insua Rodríguez’s history of philosophy in Hispanic America and Guillermo Francovich’s account of philosophy in Bolivia. In the eight decades since the publication of Sánchez Reulet’s essay, there has been a remarkable proliferation of work concerned with the identity of Latin American philosophy. In addition, anthologies, specialized works, and critical editions of Latin American philosophical classics have been published. The very controversy concerning the existence and possibility of an autochthonous Latin American philosophy that drew so much attention in the second quarter of the twentieth century (and, for that matter, still continues), has helped to promote and spread the knowledge of Latin American thought and the philosophical dialogue among Latin American philosophers. [ 3 ]

A second factor that contributed to philosophical growth and Latin-Americanism was political oppression and the periodic repression of intellectual freedom in Latin America. This was not a phenomenon limited to any one period of Latin American philosophy. The colonial regime was without a doubt paradigmatic of intellectual oppression and control, but the fact of oppression and intellectual constraints became more profound after independence. In the nineteenth century, positivists used philosophy as an instrument for specific political and social agendas, and it was used as a basis for suppressing dissent. In the twentieth century this oppressive pattern was not limited to a specific intellectual orientation; philosophical suppression became institutionalized in regimes of the right and the left. The result has always been the same: intellectual abuse, the violation of rights indispensable for the pursuit of philosophical ideas and their investigation, the lack of freedom of expression, and the manipulation of pedagogic institutions and scientific investigation for political and ideological ends. Latin American intellectuals subject to these pressures have regularly been forced to go into exile, a state of affairs that has become almost customary and is prevalent to this day in some countries. Frondizi’s life is paradigmatic of the situation: his many trips throughout Latin America were the result of the periodic political upheavals and oppression in Argentina. An indirect but unexpectedly beneficial result of this recurring situation was that the philosophical peripatetism of Latin American philosophers contributed to inter-American philosophical dialogue.

Philosophy in Latin America was also transformed by the arrival of Spanish émigrés. Among the most influential were: Joaquin Xirau (1895–1946), Eduardo Nicol (1907–1990), José Ferrater Mora (1912–1991), José Gaos (1900–1969), Luis Recaséns Siches (1903–1977), Juan D. García Bacca (1901–1992), José Medina Echevarría (1903–1977), Maria Zambrano (1904–191), and almost fifty others (see Abellán, 1967). There were diverse effects of the arrival of this group. First, their migrations throughout Latin America helped break down some of the national barriers between philosophical communities in Latin America. The conception of hispanidad that they inherited from Miguel de Unamuno and from Ortega, and the need to establish themselves in Latin America, helped the process; they went from country to country, spreading ideas and contributing to the increase in philosophical dialogue. Second, many of them helped implement changes in university curricula across Latin America, frequently establishing lasting programs in philosophy. The effects of their work became evident when the generation born around 1910 reached maturity. It was at that point that Latin American philosophers began to think and act philosophically in pan-Latin American terms, traveling, exchanging ideas, and cooperating in projects of common interest.

The period that goes from 1940 to 1960 does not reveal drastic changes in philosophical orientation. The generation of the Founders used French vitalism as an instrument to reject positivism, and the following generation, with Ortega’s help, took charge of the process, incorporating German philosophy and the new ideas introduced by phenomenology and existentialism. At this time, Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) and Jean–Paul Sartre (1905–1980) constituted the dominant philosophical force in Latin America. Simultaneously, scholasticism experienced renewed impetus. The number of sympathizers of philosophical analysis and Marxism continued to grow, but Thomism, phenomenology, existentialism, and various versions of nationalist and culturalist philosophy were the dominant approaches throughout Latin America. Those working outside the dominant currents had little institutional power.

By the 1960s, philosophy in Latin America had indisputably reached a level of philosophical maturity. The work had markedly increased in originality and depth, and some of it achieved international visibility. This period of maturity continues to the present. To appreciate the distinctiveness of this new situation, it helps to recall that the period of normalcy was characterized by (1) critical interaction with the philosophical ideas coming from outside Latin America, (2) an increase in dialogue within Latin America, and (3) the institutionalization of philosophy. In the period of maturity, these features became stable and the general caliber of philosophical work continued to improve accordingly.

If one measures philosophical activity by the number of new journals founded, or by the number of important congresses that occur, one might mistakenly conclude that philosophical activity actually diminished after the 1960s. However, many of the journals founded in the preceding twenty years continued publication, so there was actually a net increase in fora for philosophical work. Moreover, more than a dozen important congresses and philosophical meetings took place between 1960 and 1980. In short, the activity related to publications and professional meetings had reached a healthy level of stability.

Four philosophical currents deserve special attention at this period because of their growing influence and the new ideas and approaches they introduced in Latin American philosophy: socialist and Marxist thought (broadly conceived), philosophical analysis, the philosophy of liberation, and the history of philosophy.

Latin America has had a long and notable history of receptivity to socialist thought. Its introduction goes back to the nineteenth century. The impact of the socialist ideas of Claude Henri de Saint-Simon (1790–1825) and Charles Fourier (1772–1873) are clearly visible in the treatise Dogma socialista of Esteban Echevarría (1805–1851). In the twentieth century, Emilio Frugoni (1880–1969) in Uruguay and Mariátegui in Peru, among others, developed Marxist accounts, although frequently in heterodox terms. For example, Mariátegui allowed that there is no essential conflict between religious thought and Marxism, departing from the standard materialist, atheist commitments of orthodox Marxism. He also held that the conception of economic stages in Marx, modeled on Europe, did not apply to Peru. Although bourgeois liberal capitalism had not materialized in Peru, he held that the only way to move forward was to transition to socialism.

Latin American Marxism has been diverse in its philosophical particulars, and is subject to ongoing development. Even so, many forms of Latin American Marxism commitments to the following: (1) an end to imperialism, neo-colonialism and class oppression through socialist democratic change and/or revolution; (2) a form of socialist humanism based on (a) ending the capitalist exploitation of human being by human being, and (b) upholding a model of dignity based on economic and social equality; (3) a conception of philosophy as committed to understanding the world in all its dynamic and interrelated aspects, theorizing the meanings of capitalism and socialism, and shedding light on acting accordingly. Class consciousness of workers, the proletariat, or the people is typically regarded as an important engine of social change. Apart from these shared commitments, Antonio Gramsci’s (1891–1937) influential model of “organic intellectuals”—intellectuals who support social revolution with critical perspectives—also resonated with a range of leftist intellectuals who lent their support to Marxist revolutionary movements in Cuba, Nicaragua, and elsewhere. [ 4 ]

Despite a long-standing openness to various strands of socialist thought, it was only after 1960 that Marxism gained notable academic standing throughout Latin America. Indeed, Harold Davis claimed, plausibly enough, that Marxism became the most common ideological conviction among professionals in the decades following the 1960s. Mariátegui continues to loom large in characterizations of a distinctively Latin American form of Marxism. However, other important figures in academic Marxism emerged in the contemporary period, including Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez (1915–2011), of Spanish origin but working in Mexico, and the Brazilian Caio Prado Junior (1907–1990).

The popularity of the Marxism has made possible its widespread institutionalization and its impact on virtually all active philosophical approaches in Latin America. To be sure, it is not without its critics, many of whom charge that a philosophy that aims to change the world is not philosophy at all, or that its scope is entirely too limited for an entire discipline. Nevertheless, it is not much of an exaggeration to say that, broadly speaking, Marxist themes are widely present in Latin American philosophy, even if philosophers pursuing an explicitly Marxist philosophical research program remain in the minority.

Compared to Marxism, analytic philosophy was a late arrival to Latin America. Owing to its technical and academic character, analytic philosophy’s initial influence was small. Its historical connection with Logical Positivism caused many to reject it because of its perceived commonality with nineteenth century positivism. However, in a relatively short period of time, analytic philosophy became one of the most forceful philosophical currents in Latin America. The publication of the journals Crítica in Mexico, Análisis Filosófico in Argentina, and Manuscrito in Brazil, the foundation of the Society of Philosophical Analysis (SADAF) in Argentina, and the growth of publications of an analytic bent in journals of neutral philosophical orientation, testify to the fact that philosophical analysis is now well established in Latin America. [ 5 ]

An important dimension of this was the international uptake of some of this work. Some analytic philosophers from Latin America attracted the attention of philosophers in Europe (particularly in England and Germany), the United States, and Canada. In addition, Latin American philosophers who emigrated or made extended visits to these countries produced important work. Three areas of contributions stand out: the philosophy of human rights, legal theory, and logic. Eduardo Rabossi (1930–2005) work on human rights in Latin America attracted the attention of major English and American philosophers. Carlos Nino’s (1943–1993) work in the philosophy of law, such as his consensual theory of punishment, has been widely recognized as an original contribution to philosophy and jurisprudence (see Navarro in Nuccetelli et. al., 2010). Finally, Latin American work in logic has been particularly fecund. Newton C. A. da Costa (b. 1929) has done considerable work on paraconsistent logic that has been the subject of international attention (see da Costa & Bueno 2010). Carlos Eduardo Alchourrón’s (1985) contributions to the AGM model of belief change (named after Alchourrón and his collaborators, Peter Gärdenfors and David Makinson) has also been influential. Although its underpinnings were initially developed from Alchourrón and Makinson’s efforts at modeling changes in legal codes, it is now the dominant formal framework for modeling belief revision.

The growing influence of analytic philosophy in Latin America has not gone without criticism. It is not uncommon to hear that analytic philosophers lack sensitivity to the pressing problems affecting Latin America. Although this concern is hardly unique to analytic philosophy, it is also sometimes merited. However, it is also true that the rigorous argumentation, analysis of language, and use of symbolic logic often constitute obstacles for outsiders to this methodology. Nevertheless, Latin American analytic philosophers have often been involved in socially pertinent issues. Indeed, both Rabossi and Nino were involved in the politics of Argentina, serving in the government of President Raúl Alfonsín. Da Costa and Alchourrón both applied their logical theories to law and a variety of arguably “practical” problems. Moreover, a variety of Latin American analytic philosophers have been centrally preoccupied with ethical and political questions. In the wake of the 1994 Zapatista rebellion, a number of prominent Mexican philosophers (including Fernando Salmerón and Luis Villoro) became involved in public and academic efforts at addressing the concerns of the Zapatistas.

A third contemporary approach that merits special attention is the philosophy of liberation . This autochthonous philosophical perspective started in the early 1970s with a group of Argentinian philosophers, most notably Arturo Andrés Roig (1922–2012), Horacio Cerutti-Guldberg (b. 1950), and Enrique Dussel (b. 1934), with Dussel being primarily responsible for spreading the philosophy of liberation outside of Latin America. This philosophy shares some of its intellectual touchstones with the theology of liberation—in particular, indebtedness to dependency theory, as well as Catholic and Marxist ideas. Some of the most significant features of the various strands of the movement include the aspiration for Latin American intellectual independence, an emphasis on economic autonomy as opposed to economic dependence, an emphasis on political regimes that are responsive to the interest of the poor and indigenous populations, and in general, a concern to put Third World realities at the center of philosophical concerns.

The international visibility of the philosophy of liberation was in part an unanticipated consequence of military repression in 1976–83 in Argentina. The founding figures of the philosophy of liberation went into exile in various countries in Latin America. Although this early diaspora created permanent splits in the movement—Cerutti-Guldberg urges that one speak of “philosophies of liberation”—its ideas spread throughout the region.

The goal of intellectual independence, important to many varieties of the philosophy of liberation, was not new with the philosophy of liberation. Strands of it can be found in the work of Ramos and others in the early parts of the 20 th century. Other forerunners include the culturalist and historicist views of Leopoldo Zea, which emphasize the distinctiveness of Latin America and its history. Moreover, Augusto Salazar Bondy’s (1925–1974) concern for intellectual authenticity, informed by dependency theory, paved the way for important developments in the philosophy of liberation. However, the distinctive feature of the philosophy of liberation is the degree to which it has developed the theme of liberation into a far-reaching and systematic critique of European (and later, United States) dominance in intellectual, economic, and social worlds. In particular, philosophers of liberation charge that the intellectual and economic frameworks of Europe and the United States are distinguished (currently and historically) by a disregard for or hostility to the concerns of those outside the systems of power central to Europe and the United States.

The philosophy of liberation has been subject to varied criticisms. There is a rich tradition of disagreements internal to the movement (Cerutti-Guldberg 1983), and even those sympathetic with aspects of it have charged that its proponents have failed to adequately accommodate concerns about gender and sexuality (Schutte 1993), that it is insufficiently attentive to the way identity categories work (Alcoff 2000), and that despite its condemnation of Eurocentrism, it too is Eurocentric (Vargas 2005).

Although analytic philosophers (whether in Latin America or abroad) have generally ignored the philosophy of liberation (or else dismissed it as unrigorous or unphilosophical), this philosophical perspective has arguably had more impact outside of Latin America than any other Latin American philosophical development. In particular, Dussel has been in dialogue with a variety of philosophers in Europe (including Apel, Ricoeur, and Habermas), and with Continental-influenced philosophers in the United States and elsewhere (e.g., Rorty, Taylor, Alcoff, and Mendieta). [ 6 ]

The fourth philosophical current in the Latin American contemporary scene worth noting is not properly an orientation but a field of study: the history of philosophy. Philosophical productivity in this area is worthy of note because its impact has been considerably among philosophers of diverse persuasions. Before 1960, both the quantity and the quality of studies on the history of philosophy published in Latin America were often deplorable. Most works amounted to panegyrics, or mere paraphrases of texts not available in Spanish translation. Moreover, complete periods of the history of philosophy remained outside the scope of those studies. Since 1960, the situation has changed substantially. There are now works that deal with practically every period of the history of Western philosophy, and even Eastern philosophy. Moreover, a good proportion of those studies are serious, revealing knowledge of the pertinent languages and primary sources and adding a critical element without which the history of philosophy becomes merely a gloss.

A development that should be noted in this regard is the appearance of journals specializing in the history and thought of some historical periods. For example, the last decade saw the appearance of journals devoted to the study of the Middle Ages. Although not all these journals are strictly speaking philosophical, their publication is important, because it indicates the existence of the technical background doubtlessly necessary for serious historical research. It also reveals the dedication of Latin American intellectual groups to what might be called “pure research”—the search for knowledge for its own sake without consideration of its immediate practical applications.

Collectively, these facts demonstrate a thematic dexterity in handling philosophical ideas and arguments, a fact that led Miró Quesada to characterize the generations of Latin American philosophers in the period of maturity as ‘technical’. Philosophy has become a specialized and professional discipline in Latin America. Indeed, since 1960, Latin American philosophy has achieved a degree of maturity that compares well with the state of the profession in Europe and the United States.

A final recent development in the United States merits mention in connection with Latin American philosophy. There are now several generations of distinguished philosophers of Hispanic or Latin American descent have worked in the United States and Canada, contributing to traditional philosophical fields such as metaphysics, epistemology, and the history of philosophy. Among these are George Santayana (1863–1952), Héctor-Neri Catañeda (1924–1991), Mario Bunge (b. 1919), Ernesto Sosa (b. 1940), Jorge J. E. Gracia (b. 1942), and Linda M. Alcoff, among others.

In the last two or three decades a new sense of Latino/a identity in philosophy has grown among a group of philosophers who have undertaken work in areas related to Hispanic/Latino issues and have identified themselves as Hispanics or Latinos/as. Among senior philosophers who have been more clearly identified with this movement are two from the mentioned group (Alcoff and Gracia), as well as others, such as J. Angelo Corlett, Susana Nuccetelli, Eduardo Mendieta, and Ofelia Schutte. These philosophers have contributed in particular to the discourse on issues of race, ethnicity, nationality, and feminism, particularly through an analysis of ethnic, racial, and gender identity. One striking feature of much of this work is the remarkable degree to which it is explicitly informed by, or engaged with, Latin American philosophy and its history.

3. Problems and Topics

The third section of this entry focuses on topics that have been of particular concern to Latin American and Latino/a philosophers and that have interest today. These topics offer a general picture of the way these philosophers have approached philosophical problems. Nevertheless, the issues canvassed here are, necessarily, an inadequate representation of the diverse issues and approaches taken up in Latin American philosophy. [ 7 ]

Perhaps the oldest distinctive philosophical problem of post-Columbian Latin American philosophy concerns the rights of indigenous populations in the Americas, and the duties of those governments that claimed jurisdiction over them. In the mid-sixteenth century, there were serious reservations on the part of a number of philosophers, theologians, and legal theorists concerning the validity of the Spanish wars of conquest. Francisco Vitoria’s developments of just war theory were among the earliest and most lasting philosophical contributions to the topic. One of the most significant issues for sixteenth century thinkers in Spain was whether the indigenous populations were natural slaves or not. Whether the Spanish Crown could “pacify” the indigenous populations through violence—or whether more peaceful means of persuasion and political control were necessary—was perceived to turn on whether the indigenous populations were natural slaves. Relatedly, the outcome of this dispute had implications for the duties of the Spanish Crown to the indigenous population, and correspondingly, the manner in which the indigenous populations ought to be treated (Canteñs 2010).

The issue reached its apex in a debate between Juan Ginés Sepúlveda, who defended the Spanish Crown’s right to forcibly impose its legal and religious practices on the indigenous populations of the Americas, and Bartolomé de Las Casas, a Dominican friar and the first Bishop of Chiapas. Las Casas argued for a nuanced reading of the idea of natural slavery, while insisting on the full rationality of the indigenous populations, the need for peaceful evangelization of those populations, and for strict limits on the means used on behalf of Spanish interest in the Americas. The results of the debate were inclusive—Sepúlveda’s work was suppressed for a time, but Las Casas’ position on the limits of Spanish use of force never became officially adopted by the Spanish Crown. Nevertheless, Las Casas continued to play a prominent role in the Spanish Imperial court, tirelessly arguing on behalf of the native populations.

Between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries, perhaps the dominant view of Latin American philosophers (a predominantly upper class group, generally of European ancestry) tended to regard indigenous populations as a “problem” that needed to be overcome. By the late nineteenth century, amidst the considerable influence of Huxley and Social Darwinism, several nations had policies of encouraging assimilation and “civilizing” of the indigenous populations, oftentimes in conjunction with encouraging more immigration from Europe. For philosophers and policy-makers alike, concern for preserving indigenous cultural practices, language, and political autonomy was typically negligible.

In the twentieth century, the concerns and nature of indigenous populations received more varied evaluations from philosophers. For example, Mariátegui (1971) argued that indigenous Peruvians were collectivists, “natural” communists whose economic difficulties were due in large part to the ownership, distribution and use of lands in Peru. In the work of José Vasconcelos (Vasconcelos/Gamio, 1926; Vasconcelos, 1997), indigenous populations in the Americas were something to be assimilated along the way towards the formation of a “cosmic” race of mixed-people. That future population, a mixed-race people, would adapt the best cultural practices from around the world. In the work of Enrique Dussel (1995), the encounter with the Amerindian populations are philosophically important for a variety of reasons, including the formation of Europe as an important conceptual category, the creation of modernity, and what the interactions between conquerors and conquered reveal about the difficulty of understanding the interests and concerns of other peoples.

In the decade leading up to 1992 (the quincentenary of the Conquest) intellectual discussion of indigenous peoples and their interests grew considerably. By the 1990s, there was a flourishing of philosophical work, especially but not exclusively in Mexico, on issues of ethnic identity and political representation of indigenous populations. Luis Villoro, Fernando Salmerón, and León Olivé were among the prominent contributors to those discussions.

In the first part of the twenty first century, philosophical work on aspects of a distinctly Latin American problematic concerning race and politics proliferated. [ 8 ] For more on some of these matters, see the section below on the Identity of the People.

One of the most enduring challenges that the peoples of Latin America have encountered in their history concerns the definition of their identity as a people. When Iberians arrived at the Americas, Amerindians were scattered throughout an enormous territory, divided by substantially different cultures, including numerous languages. Iberians imposed a colonial unity on them, but the question of their identity became critical, particularly after Africans were brought in to make up a labor deficit in the Caribbean and the East coast of South America. How do all these peoples fit together as a people or a nation, and how are they to be conceived? The question of identity first surfaced in the discussions about the rights of Amerindians, and later of African slaves, but extended to Iberian born versus American born Europeans.

The issue became critical during the period of independence, when those who fought against the Spanish domination in particular faced the task of forming nations of a population that was diverse in race, culture, and origin. Liberators such as Bolívar and Martí understood well the challenge and rejected race in particular as a divide among the different populations from which they sought to forge unified nations (see Aguilar Rivera and Schutte in Gracia, 2011). They proposed notions of national unity based on a mixed population under ideals of political self-determination.

This emphasis changed after independence, in response to the pressing needs for national development and progress. Positivist philosophers, such as Sarmiento, frequently advocated national policies that favored European immigration as a way of undermining the racial and ethnic differences that divided the population (see Burke and Humphrey in Gracia, 2011). These policies were often based on a negative view of both Amerindians and Africans. Moreover, these policies failed to achieve the goals their proponents sought. The failure of positivist ideas to help define the identity of the populations of the various nations gave rise to a reaction, most evident in the Mexican Revolution, to turn back to the Amerindian past as a way to find a unity that would make nations of the diverse population. Notions of both national and Latin American unity were proposed on various grounds at this time. For some, as is the case with Vasconcelos, the unity is racial, a result of the mixing of the various races that constitute the Latin American populations (see von Vacano in Gracia, 2011). For others—such as Zea—the cultural unity of these populations provided the basis of national or Latin American identity (see Oliver in Gracia, 2011).

The efforts to find an effective way to define the identity of Latin Americans has continued unabated in Latin America, and has found fertile ground in the work of Latino/a philosophers working in the United States. Efforts to define the racial, ethnic and national boundaries of the identity of Latin Americans and of Latinos/as in the United States have been pursued by such authors as Alcoff, Corlett, and Gracia (see Millán and Velásquez in Gracia, 2011).

A corner stone of Latin American positivism was a scientific conception of human beings that was cashed out in psychological terms in order to solve the mind-body problem. Antipositivists attacked this conception of personhood, and set out to develop a philosophical anthropology that would provide an appealing alternative to the positivist conception of persons. Practically every established philosopher engaged in this project. Three major approaches emerged: a vitalistic anthropology, an anthropology of the spirit, and various existentialist/Marxist alternatives.

The group of philosophers who adopted some form of vitalism were strongly influenced by Bergson. On early versions of this approach, a positivist anthropology was rejected on grounds that it has no place for freedom. Among the most important early proponents of this view were Vaz Ferreira (Uruguay), Alejandro Deústua (Peru), Antonio Caso (Mexico), Enrique Molina (Chile) and Alejandro Korn (Argentina). In the work of both Caso and Vaconcelos, the distinctive character of human beings is consciousness of a sort that is purportedly at odds with deterministic or mechanistic views of the world.

The work of these authors and the visit of the popular Spanish philosopher José Ortega y Gasset, opened Latin American philosophical anthropology to the influence of a new wave of European philosophers. In particular, Husserl, Dilthey, Scheler, and Hartman gave rise to a different approach within philosophical anthropology: the anthropology of the spirit. Among the most important proponents of this view were Samuel Ramos (Mexico), Francisco Romero Argentina), Risieri Frondizi (Argentina), Francisco Miró Quesada (Peru), and Leopoldo Zea (Mexico). For Ramos, feeling, not reason, is the central feature of humanity. For Romero, the characteristic that identifies humans is duality; for Miró Quesada, the fundamental question is metaphysical, namely, “What is human?” Doubts about the possibility of finding an adequate theory tended to turn the challenge into an epistemic rather than metaphysical matter.

In the 1950s and early 1960s, Existentialism gained a foothold among philosophers in Latin American. Among the most important Latin American existentialists/Marxists are Carlos Astrada (Argentina) and Vicente Ferreira da Silva (Brazil), who were particularly influenced by Heidegger. Both were concerned with whether there is such a thing as a human essence. Astrada argues that there is not: Humans do not have a determinate essence, and that constitutes their fundamental problem. In Mexico, a variety of prominent philosophers--members of the Hyperion Group--briefly took up existentialist themes, abandoning them with a few short years (Sánchez 2016).

The notion of Latin American philosophy has been a subject of heated controversy for most of the twentieth century. The controversy has several foci. Five of the most hotly debated ones are existence, identity, characteristics, originality, and authenticity. Is there such a thing as Latin American philosophy? In what does its identity consist? Does it have any distinguishing marks? Is it original? And is it authentic?

The disagreements in the answers given to these questions are deep. There are at least four ways of looking at them depending on the approach used: universalist, culturalist, critical, and ethnic. The universalist views philosophy as a universal discipline akin to science. Consequently, the fundamental issue for universalists turns on whether Latin Americans have been able to produce the kind of universal discipline that one expects when one has science as a model. Its problems are common to all humans, its method is also common, and its conclusions are supposed to be true, regardless of particular circumstances. Most universalists, such as Frondizi, see Latin American philosophy as largely a failure in this respect.

The culturalist thinks that truth is always perspectival, dependent on a point of view. The method to acquire truth is always dependent on a cultural context. Philosophy is a historical, non-scientific enterprise concerned with the elaboration of a general point of view from a certain personal or cultural perspective. Accordingly, the culturalist can allow for the existence of Latin American philosophy insofar as Latin Americans have engaged in developing views from their perspective as individuals or as Latin Americans, and using whatever means they have found appropriate to do so. Whether they are original or authentic, or have produced a kind of scientific philosophy, are irrelevant matters. This is Leopoldo Zea’s position (see Zea in Gracia 1988–89).

The critical approach considers philosophy a result of social conditions, and closely related to those conditions. Some conditions are conducive to the production of philosophy, or what is sometimes called authentic philosophy, whereas others are not. Unfortunately, proponents of this position (e.g., Salazar Bondy, 1969) have typically seen Latin American philosophy as a failure in this respect because of the conditions operative in the region. According to them, Latin American philosophy is, and will continue to be, inauthentic and therefore not true philosophy, as long as Latin American philosophers continue to emulate the views of philosophers from the developed world.

The ethnic approach argues that Latin American philosophy needs to be understood as the philosophy produced by the Latin American people. The notion of Latin Americans as a people is the key to understanding both how Latin American philosophy has unity in diversity. It is one because an ethnic group has produced it, but it differs from place to place and across time because different historical circumstances prompt the people that produce it to address different problems and to adopt different perspectives and methods. This approach seeks to understand how Latin American philosophy can be universal, particular, and authentic, (see Gracia, 2008, ch 7).

Questions concerning the notion of Latin American philosophy were first raised in Latin America in the nineteenth century. However, it was not until the end of the first half of the twentieth century that they were seriously explored, in particular, by Zea and Frondizi. Since then, this topic has been a constant source of discussion and controversy. Indeed, it is perhaps the most discussed subject matter within Latin American philosophy.

3.4 Feminist Philosophy

Since at least the 19th century, feminist academic work in Latin America has had a complicated and generally ambivalent relationship with academic and philosophical work more generally (Fornet-Bentacourt, 2009). For example, after Independence, women were granted greater access to education but recognizably feminist concerns tended to be mostly peripheral to academic and philosophical discussion. This history has led some to argue that feminist philosophy should be centered not in philosophy but in a diverse collection of academic fields and (often activist) social practices. For example, Ofelia Schutte (2011) has maintained that feminist philosophy requires a home in a broader Latin American feminist theory and not in the discipline of philosophy in Latin America because “feminism is too new there to be able to effectively transform centuries of masculine intellectual dominance in philosophy” (p. 784).

Despite feminist philosophy’s ongoing ambivalent relationship with academic philosophy in Latin America, there has nevertheless been a recurring strand of academic philosophical work in an identifiable feminist vein since the end of the 19th century (Oliver 2007, p. 32). For example, Uruguayan philosopher Carlos Vaz Ferreria (1871–1958) gave a series of lectures in 1917 on feminism, which were later published in 1935 under the title Sobre feminismo [ On Feminism ]. Mexican philosopher Graciela Hierro (1928–2003) published extensively on feminist ethics and the role of feminism in public and academic spaces. Moreover, starting in the 1980s there has been considerable growth in the field, with important work by such figures María Pía Lara, María Luisa Femenías, and Ofelia Schutte. A good deal of recent feminist philosophy has been transnational in its sources, explicitly drawing on academic philosophy in the Americas and Continental Europe, but also drawing from the history of feminist activism in Latin America, social science research, and personal narratives.

The diversity of interests and positions of Latin American feminists makes it difficult to provide a simple but accurate characterization of the field. It is sometimes held that, in comparison to U.S. forms of feminist thought, Latin American feminism has had a somewhat greater interest in the critical analysis of families, class, and ethnicity (Schutte and Femenías 2010, p. 407–9). Consistent with the wider Latin American philosophical tradition’s impulse to self-critical reflexiveness about its tradition, it is perhaps fair to say that Latin American feminist philosophy has been particularly reflexive or self-critical about what it means to pursue feminist philosophy in Latin America. For example, feminist philosophers have emphasized the need to recognize that academic philosophers, wherever they live, enjoy a cultural privilege that may put them at some distance from the living conditions of most women in Latin America (Femenías and Oliver, 2007, p. xi). Given such a model of “epistemic privilege” where, as a matter of actual social practices, the experiences and categories of some tend to be valued over others, a number of feminist philosophers have thought feminist philosophers have a special reason to consider the ways in which feminist goals are conceptualized and represented in popular and academic discourse (Schutte 2011, p. 785).

Although the future of feminist philosophy in Latin America remains unclear, it seems rather likely that a range of its prominent concerns—including activist philosophy, concerns for epistemic and cultural privilege, and reliance on interdisciplinary interpretive frameworks will survive in the interests of a range of academic contexts.

• Abellán, José Luis, 1967, Filosofía Española en América , Madrid: Guadarrama.
• Alchourrón, C.E., P. Gärdenfors, and D. Makinson, 1985, “On the Logic of Theory Change: Partial Meet Contraction and Revision Functions”, Journal of Symbolic Logic , 50: 510-530.
• Alcoff, Linda, 2000, “Power/Knowledges in the Colonial Unconscious: A Dialogue Between Dussel and Foucault”, in Thinking From the Underside of History: Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation , edited by Linda Alcoff, and Eduardo Mendieta, 249–67. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• –––, 2006, Visible Identities: Race, Gender, and the Self , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Alcoff, Linda, and Eduardo Mendieta (eds.), 2000, Thinking from the Underside of History: Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
• Berndston, C.A.E. (ed.), 1949, Readings in Latin American Philosophy , Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
• Bonfil Batalla, Guillermo, 1996, México Profundo: Reclaiming a Civilization , Philip Adams Dennis (trans.), Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
• Canteñs, Bernardo J., 2010, “The Rights of the American Indians”, in Nuccetelli, Schutte, and Bueno (eds.) 2010, pp. 23–35.
• Cerutti Guldberg, Horacio, 1983, Filosofía de la liberación latinoamericana , Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica.
• Crawford, William Rex, 1944, A Century of Latin American Thought , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• da Costa, Newton C.A. and Otávio Bueno, 2010, “Paraconsistent Logic”, in Nuccetelli, Schutte & Bueno (eds.) 2010, pp. 217–229.
• Dussel, Enrique D., 1995, The Invention of the Americas: Eclipse of “the Other” and the Myth of Modernity , New York: Continuum.
• Femenías, María Luisa and Amy Oliver, 2007, Feminist Philosophy in Latin America and Spain , New York, NY: Rodopi.
• Fornet-Betancourt, Raúl, 2009, Mujer y filosofía en el pensamiento iberoamericano: Momentos de una relación difícil . Barcelona: Anthropos.
• Frondizi, Risieri, 1948–49, “Is There an Ibero–American Philosophy?” Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 9:345–55.
• Gracia, Jorge J. E., 2000, Hispanic/Latino Identity: A Philosophical Perspective , Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2008, Latinos in America: Philosophy and Social Identity , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
• Gracia, Jorge J. E. (ed.), 1986, Latin American Philosophy in the Twentieth Century , Buffalo: Prometheus.
• ––– (ed.), 1988–89, Latin American Philosophy Today. A Special Double Issue of The Philosophical Forum , XX (1–2).
• ––– (ed.), 2007, Race or Ethnicity? On Black and Latino Identity , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
• ––– (ed.), 2011, Forging People: Race, Ethnicity, and Nationality in Hispanic American and Latino/a Thought , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
• Gracia, Jorge J. E., Eduardo Rabossi, Enrique Villanueva, and Marcelo Dascal (eds.), 1984, Philosophical Analysis in Latin America , Dordrecht: Reidel. Abridged version of El análisis filosófico en América Latina , Mexico City: Fondo de Cultura Económica, 1985.
• Gracia, Jorge J. E., and Elizabeth Millán-Zaibert (eds.), 2004, Latin American Philosophy for the 21st Century: The Human Condition, Values, and the Search for Identity , Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
• Gracia, Jorge J. E. and Iván Jaksić (eds.), 1988, Filosofía e identidad cultural en América Latina , Caracas: Monte Avila Editores.
• Gracia, Jorge. J. E and Mireya Camurati (eds.), 1989, Philosophy and Literature in Latin America: A Critical Assessment of the Current Situation , Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Hierro, Graciela, 1985, Etica y feminismo , Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
• –––, 2001, La ética del placer , Mexico City: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
• Jacobini, H. B., 1954, A Study of the Philosophy of International Law as Seen in the Works of Latin American Writers , The Hague: Nijhoff.
• Kunz, Joseph L., 1950, Latin American Philosophy of Law in the Twentieth Century , New York: Inter American Law Institute, NYU School of Law.
• Lassalle, Edmundo, 1941, Philosophic Thought in Latin America: A Partial Bibliography , Washington, DC: Pan American Union Division of Intellectual Cooperation.
• León Portilla, Miguel, 1963, Aztec Thought and Culture: A Study of the Ancient Nahuatl Mind , Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
• Liebman, Seymour, 1976, Exploring the Latin American Mind , Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
• Maffie, James, 2014, Aztec Philosophy: Understanding a World in Motion , Louisville, CO: University Press of Colorado.
• Mariátegui, José Carlos, 1971, Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality , Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
• Márquez, Ivan (ed.), 2008, Contemporary Latin American Social and Political Thought: An Anthology , Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
• Mendieta, Eduardo, 1999, “Is There Latin American Philosophy?” Philosophy Today , 43 (Supplement): 50–61.
• ––– (ed.), 2003, Latin American Philosophy: Currents, Issues, and Debates , Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Mignolo, Walter, 2003, “Philosophy and the Colonial Difference”, in Latin American Philosophy: Currents, Issues, Debates , edited by Eduardo Mendieta, 80–86. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Nuccetelli, Susana, 2001, Latin American Thought: Philosophical Problems and Arguments , Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
• –––, 2003, “Is ‘Latin American Thought’ Philosophy?” Metaphilosophy , 34(4): 524–36.
• Nuccetelli Susana, Ofelia Schutte, and Otávio Bueno (eds.), 2010, A Companion to Latin American Philosophy , Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Nuccetelli, Susana, and Gary Seay (eds.), 2003, Latin American Philosophy and Introduction with Readings , Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Oliver, Amy, 2007, “Latin American Feminist Philosophy: Early Twentieth-Century Uruguay”, in Feminist Philosophy in Latin America and Spain , edited by María Luisa Femenías and Amy Oliver, 31–42. New York: Rodopi.
• Recaséns Siches, Luis, et al., 1948, Latin American Legal Philosophy (20th Century Legal Philosophy Series: Volume 3), Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Redmond, Walter Bernard, 1972, Bibliography of the Philosophy in the Iberian Colonies of America , The Hague: M. Nijhoff.
• Restrepo, Luis Fernando, 2010, “Colonial Thought”, in Nuccetelli, Schutte, and Bueno (eds.) 2010, pp. 42–45.
• Salles, Arlene and Elizabeth Millán (eds.), 2005, The Role of History in Latin American Philosophy : Contemporary Perspectives , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Sánchez, Carlos, 2013, The Suspension of Seriousness: On the Phenomenology of Jorge Portilla , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• –––, 2016, Contingency and Commitment: Mexican Existentialism and the Place of Philosophy , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
• Sánchez, Carlos, and Robert Sanchez (eds.), 2017, Mexican Philosophy in the 20th Century: Essential Readings , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Sánchez Reulet, Aníbal (ed.), 1954, Contemporary Latin American Philosophy: A Selection with Introduction and Notes , Willard R. Trask (trans.), Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
• Schutte, Ofelia, 1993, Cultural Identity and Social Liberation in Latin American Thought , Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress.
• –––, 2011, “Engaging Latin American Feminisms Today: Methods, Theory, Practice”, Hypatia , 26(4): 783–803.
• Schutte, Ofelia, and María Luisa. Femenías, 2010, “Feminist Philosophy”, in Nuccetelli, Schutte, and Bueno, pp. 343–56.
• Vallega, Alejandro, 2014, Latin American Philosophy From Identity to Radical Exteriority , Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
• Vargas, Manuel, 2004, “Biología y la filosofía de la raza en México: Bulnes y Vasconcelos”, in Construcción de las identidades latinoamericanas: Ensayos de historia intelectual , edited by Aimer Granados, and Carlos Marichal. Mexico City: Colegio de México.
• –––, 2005, “Eurocentrism and the Philosophy of Liberation”, APA Newsletter on Hispanic/Latino Issues , 4(2): 8–17.
• –––, 2007, “Real Philosophy, Metaphilosophy, and Metametaphilosophy”, CR: The New Centennial Review , 7(3): 51–78.
• Vasconcelos, José, 1997, The Cosmic Race: A Bilingual Edition , Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
• Vasconcelos, José, and Manuel Gamio, 1926, Aspects of Mexican Civilization , Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
• von Vacano, Diego A., 2012, The Color of Citizenship: Race, Modernity and Latin American/Hispanic Political Thought , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Zea, Leopoldo, 1963, The Latin American Mind , Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
• –––, 1988–89, “Identity: A Latin American Philosophical Problem”, The Philosophical Forum , XX (1–2): 33–42.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Latin American Philosophy Homepage , maintained by Manuel Vargas.

Chile: philosophy in | Comte, Auguste | Enlightenment | Latin American Philosophy: metaphilosophical foundations | liberalism: in Latin America | Marxism, analytical | Mexico: philosophy in | Ortega y Gasset, José | phenomenology | philosophy of science: in Latin America | race | skepticism: in Latin America

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the thoughtful advice of an anonymous reviewer, and feedback from Liam Kofi Bright.

Copyright © 2018 by Jorge Gracia Manuel Vargas < mrvargas @ ucsd . edu >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054