A Flame Burns in Cuzco: The First Nations of the Andes during the Andean Revolutions

Israelite9191

You should be reading
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
4,199
Location
Annapolis, Maryland
This is an end of the year paper I wrote last year for World History. I thought I might as well post it here for the use of others. I know it is rather short for the broad topic (four pages in Microsoft Word), but I did have a length restriction as well as an assigned topic. Unfortunately, I seem to have lost the file with the bibliography. I will try and get it from my World History teacher though.


A Flame Burns in Cuzco: The First Nations of the Andes during the Andean Revolutions​

July, 1821, the Republic of Peru is established. November, 1811, the United Provinces of New Granada is established. April 1825, Bolivian independence is secured. These revolutions were led by criollos (creoles, whites born in the colonies), but were driven by the First Nations (a.k.a. Native Americans), the mestizos (mixed white and First Nations), mullatos (mixed white and African), zambos (mixed African and First Nations), and Africans. In the Cuzco area of Peru, Northern Potosí, the La Paz area of Bolivia, and the rest of Peru and Bolivia, the First Nations would lead the charge, fueled by Incan nationalism (including pseudo-religious beliefs about the resurrection of the Sapa Inca), radical egalitarian ideas, and challenges to local Spanish authority in all its forms. In New Granada the “libres de todos colores” or “free men and women of all colors” would fight to secure rights in a mix of native, African, and creole nationalism. The mindset of the Andean First Nations during the Latin American Revolutions in complex and to understand it one must understand that each area of the Andes experienced the revolution differently and had a different outlook on the situation. The best way to come to understand the Andean First Nations’ mindset would be to examine the best available example of the mindset of these people.

Perched in a valley high in the Andes Mountains, Cuzco was the center of the largest and most advanced pre-Columbian empire, running a centralized nation stretching from southern Columbia in the north to central Chile in the south. From Cuzco branched out a system of roads that would have made the Romans cry for jealousy. At the dawn of the Latin American Revolutions Cuzco would become a center again, the center of a pan-Inca independence movement stretching from Cuzco throughout Peru, Northern Chile, Northwestern Argentina, and much of Bolivia. The epitome of this movement is seen in the Great Rebellion, led by Túpac Amaru II a native trader and a member of the curaca class of native nobility, claiming descent from the last Sapa Inca, Túpac Amaru. Buring the height of the Great Rebellion Túpac Amaru II held such power and prestige in aforementioned areas that his orders were carried out as if they were from a Sapa Inca, and indeed, the people believed he was the new Sapa Inca come to liberate the pan-Inca people from Spain and recreate the Inca Empire. The Great Rebellion covered over 200,000 miles of vital territory and well more than 100,000 native soldiers.

The religious ideas of millennialism, resurrection/reincarnation of the Sapa Inca inspired by Christianity, and other concepts were the driving force along with pan-Inca nationalism is the Great Rebellion and the later liberation of Peru for the First Nations of Cuzco and the surrounding areas, and in fact were a driving force for the criollos he joined with the First Natives in the Great Rebellion and the liberation of Peru and the rest of the Andes. This came about from the practices and outlook of the criollos and other Spanish authorities. For the criollos the Inca culture was in a sense a way to distinguish themselves from the peninsulares (Iberian born whites). To them the Inca were a culture inherited by the criollos upon the conquest of the area. The criollos pursued the Inca culture encouraging pre-Columbian festivals, native dress and culture, and dramatic and other shows of the stories of the Inca past. For the peninsulares the Inca were a defeated culture and allowing people to remember them in a utopian way could have no harm as the Inca were dead, a lost civilization that provided no threat. As a result of this Inca nationalism rose among the First Nations, and the criollos, encouraging rebellion and the search for independence. In addition the power structure and in particular the massive and far too quick Bourbon reforms caused great unease, in particular among the criollos who lost a great amount of power after the Bourbon reforms and the curacas who sought more power, themselves having too lost great amounts of power after the Bourbon reforms. For the peasantry too the Bourbon reforms were a great cause of dissent as they put further hardships upon the people, despite the Bourbons’ intentions of streamlining colonial government and reforming the system. The two key factors that prevented much of the First Nations from revolting were loyalty to the king (though this nearly evaporated after the Bourbons were replaced by a Napoleonic monarchy) and the fact that the promises of reform from revolutionary leaders often rang hollow, for instance Túpac Amaru after achieving some power established a parallel structure to that of the colonial system.

For the First Nations of the Cuzco area the choice was very clear in most cases. Rebellion against Spain was the only option in their minds. With a decaying colonial system, failed and oppressive reforms by the Bourbons, pressure from foreign creoles like José Francisco de San Martín and Simón Bolívar, rising nationalist feelings and rising messianic beliefs, the only obvious choice for the First Nations would be to side with the revolutionaries. However, many members of the Andean First Nations still stayed loyal to the Spanish throne. Though there are reasons to account for why the specific cases of the Andean First Nations did not rebel the main reason was no doubt much simpler. People are simply not that willing to cooperate in drastic change. If the trains run on time, then what’s the difference? Many people in the Andes had no obvious reason to revolt. Though they knew that the peninsulares, criollos, and really everyone else in the colonial hierarchy had more than they did, this fact did not necessarily affect their everyday lives. They knew that whoever was in charge, they would still rise early in the morning to do begin whatever work had to be done, work a long hard day, go to sleep, and begin again. For most people, then and now, life is life and there is little that people see that they can change.

The happenings of the Cuzco region are paramount to an introductory understanding of the Andean First Nations during the Latin American Revolutions. While Cuzco is a fabulous example, it is by no means an exhaustive one. By studying Cuzco alone one does not come to understand in depth the effect of new philosophical ideas on the revolution in the La Paz area, nor does one learn about how the complex hierarchy of the colonial system contributed to revolt in Northern Potosí, and one also does not learn of the greatly unique situation of New Granada where the First Nations were normally not separated from the mullatos, mextizos, zambas, blacks, and even for a large part the criollos. The Andean First Nations were of primal importance in the revolutions to establish independent states in South America, but they still benefited the least in most cases. Bolivia has only recently elected its first native leader, practically a crime against democracy when one considers that Bolivia’s population is majority native. The Andean First Nations had an important decision to make at the outbreak of the Latin American Revolutions. The decisions that the individuals lost to history so long ago have defined where the Andes, Latin America, Spain, the Americas, Europe, and the world are today.
 
Good article.

But do you really think the Incas were the most advanced pre-columbian society? IMO the mayans were ahead in everything, except perhps road building. And unlike the Incas they had a wrting system, what makes all the difference.

Another thing worth pointing out is that most of the modern andean indians are not descendants of the Incas, but rather of one of the many subjected tribes.
 
Perhaps the Inka weren't the most advanced, but they were certainly the most powerful and their culture had strong connotations. Also, I do recognize that the Natives of the Andes are not all descended from the Inka, but that is not what matters. What matters is that the greater Inka culture acted to bring together the various nations of the Andes. For instance, the vast majority of Native American (I am refering to the US here) nations were not of the Plains, but the Plains traditions and culture have in many ways come to define the greater Native American culture, even for Native Americans. This was even more so with the Inka. The Inka had dominated the region politically and culturally for generations and instilled in the memory of the Natives a time when they ruled themselves, instead of being ruled by the completely unrelated Spanish. In the Great Rebellion of Tupac Amaru the importance of the Inka is not in actual blood lines, ethnicities, and nationalities, but in what the Inka represented.
 
Israelite9191 said:
Perhaps the Inka weren't the most advanced, but they were certainly the most powerful and their culture had strong connotations. Also, I do recognize that the Natives of the Andes are not all descended from the Inka, but that is not what matters. What matters is that the greater Inka culture acted to bring together the various nations of the Andes. For instance, the vast majority of Native American (I am refering to the US here) nations were not of the Plains, but the Plains traditions and culture have in many ways come to define the greater Native American culture, even for Native Americans. This was even more so with the Inka. The Inka had dominated the region politically and culturally for generations and instilled in the memory of the Natives a time when they ruled themselves, instead of being ruled by the completely unrelated Spanish. In the Great Rebellion of Tupac Amaru the importance of the Inka is not in actual blood lines, ethnicities, and nationalities, but in what the Inka represented.
Indeed, the culture of the andean indians is Incan above all.

My point was aimed at pointing out the irony of the pre-columbian revivalism that we see today in Peru, and above all in Bolivia. Evo Morales for exemple talks about a golden pre-columbian time where everyone lived in harmony and their ancestors were the rulers, however Morales himself is not a descendant of the Inca ruling class but rather of one of the subjected tribes.
 
It is somewhat ironic, but in the minds of modern Andean natives, the majority of people tend to be categorized as either: a) descendants of white oppressors, or b) descendants of oppressed (and still oppressed) Natives. This of course means it doesn't really matter what the tribe is, as long as the tribe isn't criollo.
 
Israelite9191 said:
It is somewhat ironic, but in the minds of modern Andean natives, the majority of people tend to be categorized as either: a) descendants of white oppressors, or b) descendants of oppressed (and still oppressed) Natives. This of course means it doesn't really matter what the tribe is, as long as the tribe isn't criollo.
Precisely, and that doesn't make any sense when we analyze the history of Andes before the arrival of the spaniards. Olnly after the european conquest the native tribes were all lumped together.
 
No writing? Modern scholars are beginning to take the quipu more and more seriously as an actual writing system, something like a combination of a painting and a Braile alphabet.

Nice job, Israel.
 
North King said:
No writing? Modern scholars are beginning to take the quipu more and more seriously as an actual writing system, something like a combination of a painting and a Braile alphabet.
Indeed recently some scholars are arguing that Incas had a rudimentary writing system. But they had nothing as sophisticated as the Mayas had, that's for sure.
 
luiz said:
Indeed recently some scholars are arguing that Incas had a rudimentary writing system. But they had nothing as sophisticated as the Mayas had, that's for sure.

Well, yes. The Inca were rather more primitive than the Maya, but then, the Maya are to the Americas as the Greeks were to the ancient Old World.
 
luiz said:
Precisely, and that doesn't make any sense when we analyze the history of Andes before the arrival of the spaniards. Olnly after the european conquest the native tribes were all lumped together.
Which is why I refer to them that way in this article. I'm starting to confuse myself though, are we in complete agreement or are we debating?
 
Israelite9191 said:
Which is why I refer to them that way in this article. I'm starting to confuse myself though, are we in complete agreement or are we debating?
Agreement, agreement. I was debating with myself.
 
luiz said:
Good article.

But do you really think the Incas were the most advanced pre-columbian society? IMO the mayans were ahead in everything, except perhps road building. And unlike the Incas they had a wrting system, what makes all the difference.

Another thing worth pointing out is that most of the modern andean indians are not descendants of the Incas, but rather of one of the many subjected tribes.

I think they all had their merits.

Inca - engineering (road building - could have rivaled the Romans if they had the chance), social engineering (placing conquered peoples in different parts of the empire) and metallurgy (most advanced bronze working).
Aztecs - Written language, and government structure (seemed almost like late bronze age or early medival age structure - a senate and they would vote on which heir would be emperor. Atleast that's what I read somewhere.)
Maya - Astronomy and math I would think.

If I could compare each of the above to a European/Asian civilization, it would be:

Inca = China or Rome (both had similarities).
Aztecs = Rome (in written language, and government - somewhat).
Maya = Greece (astronomy/math).
 
Pretty much everything except military was inherited by the Triple Alliance (aka Mexica, Aztecs, etc.) from earlier civilizations (Teotihuacan, Olmecs, Zapotecs, etc.). The Inka meanwhile developed their unique government and social engineering themselves, although they likewise built on earlier civilizations' achievements (Wari, Chavin, Titicaca, etc.). The Inka were also no metalurgists. Rather, they used cloth technologies. For instance, at the arrival of the Spaniards the Inka's most powerful weapon was a giant (over a yard) sling designed to launch missiles fast enough to kill a horse dozens of feet away in a single hit. They also adapted the sling so that they could wrap heated stones in pitch saoked cloth that would combust in mid-air created flying balls of fire. If it hadn't been for disease and civil disrest resulting afer recent civil wars the Inka would have easily crushed the Spaniards. In fact, they almost did. Overall, however, the Maya were easily the most advanced.
 
130 spanish soldiers and 37 horses against millions of indians and the Incas would have need giant slings, fire balls and other strange artifacts to easily crush them?
 
What is rarely mentioned is that even if the Aztecs had repelled the initial incursions of Cortez and the Incas had repelled Pizarro, sooner or later they would fall to the spaniards regardless. The colonization of the New World was a legnthy business, and over time millions of spaniards and portuguese came to the Americas. There is absolutely no way that the pre-columbian civilizations could have survived very long after the Discovery.
 
The fall of both the Triple Alliance and the Inka Empire were due not to the superior technology of the Spaniards or anything of the sort. It was due in part to disease and in part ot domestic (ie Amerindian) problems. If it had not been for the fact that the Spaniards brought plagues that wiped out astonishing numbers of Amerindians extraordinarily quickly (by the end over 90% of the original inhabitants, Central Mexico has only recovered in population in the 20th century), the Amerindians would have easily overrun the Spaniards with sheer numbers. Even ignoring the disease, what gave the Spaniards the ability to conquer the two empires were the Amerindian's own political problems. In Mexico huge numbers, even millions, of Amerindians rose in revolt against the Triple Alliance to support the Spaniards believing that they could first eliminate the Triple Alliance then eliminate the Spaniards (they of course did not expect the plagues that made the latter opportunity impossible). In Peru the Inka had only just gotten over huge civil wars that would make the Romans shake in their boots. The military and civilian power of the Inka had been totally decimated prior to the arrival of the Spaniards, the conquistadores merely took advantage of an already present situation (it also helped that Pizarro was really quite good militarily and diplomatically while his Inka counterpart was quite bad).
 
Well, for me it is quite clear that the amerindian civilizations could have defeated Pizarro and Cortéz, but not the spaniards.

How long would it take, after the discovery of the endless silver mines of Potosí, for the Spanish to assemble a relly big army had Pizarro beign defeated? Not very long, I suppose.

Also it could probably go the brazilian way. Here it was not the army or official expeditions that killed most indians, but rather private group of civilians known as bandeirantes. They were lustful for the vast reserves of gold and diamonds in the brazilian countryside and killed anything in thier way. Soon their numbers were bigger than those of the amerindians. The same would have happened in Peru. A decent number of spaniards, with superior weaponry and superior tactis would have wiped out Incas regardless of the outcome of Pizarro's expedition.
 
If the Pizarro Expedition and the successive brutal wars of conquest had failed (as they almost did far too many times to count), I doubt the Inka would have fallen to the Spaniards or anyone else. The Inka had far too many advantages (geography (and this can not be under-estimated), infrastructure, tradition of centralized government, military power, military technology, wealth, etc.) to be taken easily. Just as important, perhaps even more importantly, the success of a native empire at defeated the superpower of the time would be a HUGE psychological blow. The Spaniards would obviously not try again and neither would any of the other powers. By the time any Europeans worked up the guts to try and conquer the Inka, the Inka would have adopted to changes, re-established the monarchy, adopted newly available technologies and resources (horses etc., though possibly not horses in particular seeing as the Andes are nto really suited to horses), established relationships on the level of an equal with other powers, ridden out the worst of the plagues, etc.. Basically, the failure of Pizarro and/or the Spanish conquest of Tawantinsuyu would have given the Inka time to regroup and eliminate the possibility of fall to the Europeans. On the matter of the Triple Alliance I am total agreement, the domestic problems of the Triple Alliance were just to do much to overcome.

The bandeirantes idea is interesting, but I don't believe it would have succeeded in the Inka Empire (nor likely the Triple Alliance, but it seems slightly more likely there). The Inka government was too strong, the Inka military too powerful, the Inka infrastructure to developed, and the Inka Empire too populous for non-government funded individuals to infiltrate their territory and establish any sort of power. Brazil was entirely different from the Andes and what is true of one is doubtful to be true of another.
 
In fact the incas regrouped and revolted massively against the spaniards in Peru few years after Francisco Pizarro initial conquest (there was no much more spaniards in Peru then either). It was under the lead of the Inca prince Manco Inca Yupanqui, then Tupac Amaru and many others. Those times however the fight was more leveled becuase the revolted indians used horses and spanish weapons as crossbows and arquebuses. However the rebelds were defeated again and again even when there was many civil wars between the conquistadores themselves (Almagro vs Hernando Pizarro). All this makes me believe that the Incas were doomed inevitably. Or like, according to the chronicler Francisco of Jerez, Pizarro assured when he contacted with the Inca empire at first time: "The time of the Inca is over".
 
Top Bottom