What do you think?
Rate this book
The Penguin History of Latin America
Now fully updated to 2009, this acclaimed history of Latin America tells its turbulent story from Columbus to Chavez. Beginning with the Spanish and Portugese conquests of the New World, it takes in centuries of upheaval, revolution and modernization up to the present day, looking in detail at Argentina, Mexico, Brazil, Chile and Cuba, and gives an overview of the cultural developments that have made Latin America a source of fascination for the world.
'A first-rate work of history ... His cool, scholarly gaze and synthesizing intelligence demystify a part of the world peculiarly prone to myth-making ... This book covers an enormous amount of ground, geographically and culturally' Tony Gould, Independent on Sunday
'A first-rate work of history ... His cool, scholarly gaze and synthesizing intelligence demystify a part of the world peculiarly prone to myth-making ... This book covers an enormous amount of ground, geographically and culturally' Tony Gould, Independent on Sunday
705 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1992
216 people are currently reading
1396 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews
Read
September 28, 2018Brrghhh. A good cold shower after reading this is just the thing, rather along the same lines as panning for gold, to try and wash away the superfluous and get down to the shining nuggets.
The recent death of Fidel Castro prompted me to return once more to my ongoing multi-year project to read or reread the many neglected books on my shelves since I recalled it has a section on Cuba even though the text only runs up to the year 1990. I bought it some time in the mid 90s, possibly after reading The General in his Labyrinth when I was keen to read more about Simon Bolivar. The first issue is that the book was published in 1992 and the various narratives run up to 1990ish & some developments appeared perhaps more significant then than they do now - Cuba for instance weathered the end of the Soviet Union rather skilfully, and thanks to the renting out of Doctors is now perhaps approaching liberation from an economy dependent on the export of primary
produce, the trap which most of the counties here discussed were caught in.
Two central ideas in this survey history of Latin America are 'Order & Progress', and Independent People, the first representative of the search for a unifying national idea coupled with economic strength, the second the recurrent faith that WWI will continue forever allowing everyone to live in concrete houses and to consume imported goods. Perhaps the two are one issue - how to have your cake and eat it in an integrated world economy.
The book is divided into three sections, pre-independence, the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, coverage is uneven, there's not much here on Central America, while Argentina, Brazil,Cuba, Chile,and Mexico each get mini-chapterlets on their 20th century history, however Brazil & Mexico probably get the most attention in the 19th century. The author doesn't discuss why he focuses on those particular states or why he even cut the cake in that way - one could have taken a thematic approach, given that the developmental and political challenges appear to have been very similar. Yet I have the curious feeling that it is less a survey history and more a primer for people reading Latin American literature, providing the social and political background that Wiliamson feels explains it. And on that note I notice even in the sections dealing with the early colonial period he gives over quite a bit of space to those who were writing in Latin America as though to imply that later more famous writers didn't pop out of nowhere but were simply the better known flowerings of a well established and deep rooted literary tradition.
For me the great, profound weakness of the book is the near absence of race & women for long stretches - par for the course you might say with an exasperated sigh at my nativity, yet the problem is that Williamson describes how in the colonial period there was scarcely room on a boat in the early days of conquest for women so frequently the Iberian settlers and imported African slaves had sexual relationships with the local women and that in addition the white settlers had from the first strong prejudices against black people. So he establishes a understanding of these creole societies as patriarchal,and powerfully stratified on the basis of skin colour and naturally one wonders what happens - how does this play out in an industrialising economy with elections - answer there comes none. The heavy lifting on issues of culture and identity is done in the chapters on cultural developments which are skewed towards literature. One is left to wonder how Zapotec lawyer Benito Juárez ever got to be president of Mexico ()
Simon Bolivar towards the end of his life described the effort of attempting to govern Latin America as 'ploughing the sea' - and Williamson describes all of the Latin American countries aside from Brazil (which got an Emperor all of its own ) and Paraguay (which seemingly reinvented the Jesuit mission under a dynasty of dictators as a political model as in search of political stability without a Monarch. Countries were repeatedly ripped apart over divisions between Liberal (ie Classical Liberal - free trade and a wage economy types) vs conservative, centralist vs federalist conceptions of the state and the problem of distance from and non-representation of the non-white population who might either run off or take up arms. At this I felt the want of a comparison with the USA which from the perspective of this terminology didn't look too different from these other creole states with its civil war between supporters of free labour versus proponents of a slave society - which was followed by a long and savage guerilla war. The major difference seems only to be that the most vocal supporter of a powerful centralised state was shot by Aaron Burr in a duel and in time the USA was far more effective in mobilising capital to develop its economy.
The other point which to my biased eyes felt like a weakness was a tendency for economic growth to be implicitly presented as the most important criterion of state success or failure, an implication stressed by the pages of tabulated growth data that end the book. Yet as a civilian one may value other things in your life, few I suspect would chose GDP or the rate of inflation if asked what was important or meaningful in their lives, though plainly life with low GDP or high inflation is undesirable, it seems a rather narrow conception of human life. Here again the chapters on cultural development have to do a lot of heavy lifting.
Also the book slips between two stools, neither having a consistent focus on the development of one area all the way through nor a continuous overview of common trends. Plainly not the book to chose if you want to be with Bolivar's defeated army as they recuperate in Angostura in hammocks, smoking cigars, explaining to one another how they are not bitter, despite their see-sawing fortunes in the wars of Independence. Still as nice and dense an introduction as one can squeeze into a single volume.
The recent death of Fidel Castro prompted me to return once more to my ongoing multi-year project to read or reread the many neglected books on my shelves since I recalled it has a section on Cuba even though the text only runs up to the year 1990. I bought it some time in the mid 90s, possibly after reading The General in his Labyrinth when I was keen to read more about Simon Bolivar. The first issue is that the book was published in 1992 and the various narratives run up to 1990ish & some developments appeared perhaps more significant then than they do now - Cuba for instance weathered the end of the Soviet Union rather skilfully, and thanks to the renting out of Doctors is now perhaps approaching liberation from an economy dependent on the export of primary
produce, the trap which most of the counties here discussed were caught in.
Two central ideas in this survey history of Latin America are 'Order & Progress', and Independent People, the first representative of the search for a unifying national idea coupled with economic strength, the second the recurrent faith that WWI will continue forever allowing everyone to live in concrete houses and to consume imported goods. Perhaps the two are one issue - how to have your cake and eat it in an integrated world economy.
The book is divided into three sections, pre-independence, the nineteenth century and the twentieth century, coverage is uneven, there's not much here on Central America, while Argentina, Brazil,Cuba, Chile,and Mexico each get mini-chapterlets on their 20th century history, however Brazil & Mexico probably get the most attention in the 19th century. The author doesn't discuss why he focuses on those particular states or why he even cut the cake in that way - one could have taken a thematic approach, given that the developmental and political challenges appear to have been very similar. Yet I have the curious feeling that it is less a survey history and more a primer for people reading Latin American literature, providing the social and political background that Wiliamson feels explains it. And on that note I notice even in the sections dealing with the early colonial period he gives over quite a bit of space to those who were writing in Latin America as though to imply that later more famous writers didn't pop out of nowhere but were simply the better known flowerings of a well established and deep rooted literary tradition.
For me the great, profound weakness of the book is the near absence of race & women for long stretches - par for the course you might say with an exasperated sigh at my nativity, yet the problem is that Williamson describes how in the colonial period there was scarcely room on a boat in the early days of conquest for women so frequently the Iberian settlers and imported African slaves had sexual relationships with the local women and that in addition the white settlers had from the first strong prejudices against black people. So he establishes a understanding of these creole societies as patriarchal,and powerfully stratified on the basis of skin colour and naturally one wonders what happens - how does this play out in an industrialising economy with elections - answer there comes none. The heavy lifting on issues of culture and identity is done in the chapters on cultural developments which are skewed towards literature. One is left to wonder how Zapotec lawyer Benito Juárez ever got to be president of Mexico ()
Simon Bolivar towards the end of his life described the effort of attempting to govern Latin America as 'ploughing the sea' - and Williamson describes all of the Latin American countries aside from Brazil (which got an Emperor all of its own ) and Paraguay (which seemingly reinvented the Jesuit mission under a dynasty of dictators as a political model as in search of political stability without a Monarch. Countries were repeatedly ripped apart over divisions between Liberal (ie Classical Liberal - free trade and a wage economy types) vs conservative, centralist vs federalist conceptions of the state and the problem of distance from and non-representation of the non-white population who might either run off or take up arms. At this I felt the want of a comparison with the USA which from the perspective of this terminology didn't look too different from these other creole states with its civil war between supporters of free labour versus proponents of a slave society - which was followed by a long and savage guerilla war. The major difference seems only to be that the most vocal supporter of a powerful centralised state was shot by Aaron Burr in a duel and in time the USA was far more effective in mobilising capital to develop its economy.
The other point which to my biased eyes felt like a weakness was a tendency for economic growth to be implicitly presented as the most important criterion of state success or failure, an implication stressed by the pages of tabulated growth data that end the book. Yet as a civilian one may value other things in your life, few I suspect would chose GDP or the rate of inflation if asked what was important or meaningful in their lives, though plainly life with low GDP or high inflation is undesirable, it seems a rather narrow conception of human life. Here again the chapters on cultural development have to do a lot of heavy lifting.
Also the book slips between two stools, neither having a consistent focus on the development of one area all the way through nor a continuous overview of common trends. Plainly not the book to chose if you want to be with Bolivar's defeated army as they recuperate in Angostura in hammocks, smoking cigars, explaining to one another how they are not bitter, despite their see-sawing fortunes in the wars of Independence. Still as nice and dense an introduction as one can squeeze into a single volume.
Want to read
September 19, 2014The efforts of penguins to rewrite our histories has not gone unnoticed.
April 20, 2019
Would be nice if a book about Latin American history weren't written by an author from one of its conquering countries. And would be nice if he didn't keep referring to the indigenous peoples as "Indians".
January 17, 2016
I had to put this book down on page 85. I am shocked to discover this author is considered an expert in Latin American studies. His blatant biased against Americanos detracts from any historical significance of his work. I continued to read when Williamson justified the "discovery" of the Americas as a necessary precursor to be included in the annals of (Western) world history. I continued to read when he referred to aggressive Natives tribes as barbarian and savage; but referred to the murderous Conquistadors as "adventurers." I stopped reading when Williamson justified the term "Indian" as useful to differentiate Americanos from Europeans.
January 3, 2024
An invaluable book but very long indeed. I have learned so much essential knowledge of Latin America that it has transformed my understanding of the world. I highly recommend this odyssey of a book.
February 21, 2012
I read about 50% of the book on the kindle version because I was interested mainly in the conquest and imperial eras.
Even though I read the book consistently every day, it took me about two months to read half of it. It is extremely long and exhaustive, covering various subjects, from internal economical structure of the colonies, to cultural works produced in them, such as literature and poetry. I found almost everything interesting and informative, and mostly written in an engaging fashion.
On top of the length of the book, something that tested my resolve to continue this book was the fact that the history of Brazil starts very late - After spending what felt like forever covering the first few hundreds of the Spanish presence in Latin America, the book started talking about Brazil, throwing back the historical timeline a few hundred of years. At that point reading this book felt a big like a Sisyphean undertaking.
Even though I read the book consistently every day, it took me about two months to read half of it. It is extremely long and exhaustive, covering various subjects, from internal economical structure of the colonies, to cultural works produced in them, such as literature and poetry. I found almost everything interesting and informative, and mostly written in an engaging fashion.
On top of the length of the book, something that tested my resolve to continue this book was the fact that the history of Brazil starts very late - After spending what felt like forever covering the first few hundreds of the Spanish presence in Latin America, the book started talking about Brazil, throwing back the historical timeline a few hundred of years. At that point reading this book felt a big like a Sisyphean undertaking.
September 19, 2020
Incredibly dense and detailed, so the reading is slow. However, it made me think about cause-effect relationships, trends, and what-ifs that I had never considered regarding the region, and I have a doctorate in Spanish and Latin American studies. Although the content is vast and sweeping, the stories are told on a granular level that evokes old-style history books while still referencing cultural theorists in a way that feels more postmodern.
Honestly, though, the main things I took away from this were how little I really know of economics and how central economics is to every single aspect of history, without exception. Import-substitute-industrialization, for instance, and inequality indexes. Foreign debt and IMF bargaining. Not glamorous bedtime reading, but essential to draw connections and reach (ever-changing) conclusions.
Honestly, though, the main things I took away from this were how little I really know of economics and how central economics is to every single aspect of history, without exception. Import-substitute-industrialization, for instance, and inequality indexes. Foreign debt and IMF bargaining. Not glamorous bedtime reading, but essential to draw connections and reach (ever-changing) conclusions.
March 22, 2025
Pain and gain. No one said it'd be easy, but ~620 pages of largely economic and political history doesn't scream holiday reading. Despite being a one volume Penguin history, this book is for sure on the denser side. And there are occasionally unfortunate reminders that this book was written in the 90s (native peoples are called 'Indians'). But, in all fairness, this is an impressive book with immense coverage, and it has given me a solid base of understanding for the places I'm travelling around.
July 4, 2023
A tour de force that takes the reader from Columbus through to nearly the present day. After a long durée overview of the Latin American experience since 1492, we’re then taken through the more recent experiences in the twentieth century of some of the key players in Latin America. There are omissions, of course, but this is a great introduction to an area seldom covered in European history lessons.
August 13, 2020
Disclaimer: I use “America” and “Americans” in the same way those who come from central and south America do and use it to refer to people from the Americas and not just the United States.
Williamson talks about the "genesis" of Latin America (from a European point of view), starting with Spanish and Italian mariners who lay claim to the land they found (I refrain from using the word ‘discovered’ as the Americas were already there; as one friend said rolling her eyes to someone, “You’re like Christopher Columbus, discovering something that was already there!”) The natives of the Americas were largely killed by European diseases and Spanish barbarity. Animals traditionally carry diseases and the Americas had very few animals native to their lands, unlike in Europe or Africa, and so disease was never carried by these animals and passed onto humans. In addition, the populations were never dense and dense populations- think 17th century London during the plague- are hotbeds for contagious diseases, which spread and kill, leaving only the more robust and resistant of the population to procreate. These survivors then pass on their genes to their offspring, who are also fit and immune to diseases which killed off many who never had a chance to reproduce and spread their genes.
The Spanish and Portuguese Crowns were having trouble finding native American labour to extract gold, extract silver and harvest sugar as the population was rapidly diminishing due to European germs and barbarity. Over a century before coming to the New World, the Portuguese had set up a slave trade from west Africa and with few labourers to work the land, they diverted the slave trade to Brazil. Africa, having many native animals (who carried diseases, infected the peoples, had the disease spread around thriving populations and cities and left only the fittest behind) meant that Africans were more immune to diseases carried over by Europeans, the same diseases which ended up decimating the American population. The Crown then decided to switch to using African slaves, with Brazil taking over 40% of the African slaves sent to South America.
The Spaniards had a three-tier system or a “dual republic” with Americans on one side and “peninsulares”, that is, people from peninsular Spain on the other. But as there were many male conquistadores and settlers from Spain and only American women, the two mixed and a caste system developed, giving privileges depending on origin and skin colour, leading to a three-tiered system. This gave rise to names like mestizo, castizo, mulatto as people of European, American and African origin mixed. There were peninsulares from Spain, creoles who were of Spanish origin but were born in the Americas and the native American population. Ostensibly, the Crown’s objective was to “Christianise” the native peoples, arguing that they were savage people in need of saving. As they said this, they tugged nervously at their shirt collars, knowing how insanely advanced the Mayans, the Aztecs and others were, despite their lack of belief in a European god. Working for wages was a foreign concept to the American populations, as they were used to bartering and trading for items that they wanted and so the Spanish Crown had to force them to work through the encomienda system. Native Americans were thus the only ones in Latin America who were forced to pay tribute to the Crown (through labour) and creoles and peninsulares were exempt from paying tribute, which is probably why the Crown stayed in power so long. Queen Isabella (Crown of Castile, 1492) from the beginning said that she didn’t want the native Americans to be enslaved and then she sort of turned her head back, winked and said that the encomienda system would be fine. This was essentially slavery as the wages were paltry and the Americans were forced to work against their own will. Gradually, the Americans got absorbed into Hispanic towns and as their numbers dwindled due to lack of immunity to European disease, aggression and poor living conditions, they were forced to work for Europeans in order to survive.
The Crown was a unifying force but the Latin American states saw themselves as independent, with each nascent nation, having kept a lot from its culture. You can see this today in Peru, where Quechua is still spoken in some parts and amongst the different cultural events in each country which pay homage not only to Catholicism (a late phenomenon for them) but also incorporates aspects of their ancestral religions and beliefs. As more creoles were born and they became a majority, they began to see Spain as the overbearing parent. This is different to Brazil, where Americans were fewer in number and were dispersed around the continent, with some practicing cannibalism. For the Crown of Portugal, this was proof enough of their savagery so there were never any of the moral conundrums that the Spanish Crown fought over, when they preached Christianity on the one hand but then exhibited very unChristian behaviour on the other. In addition, as the native people were spread out and there was no unifying culture (like there was in the Andes for example), it was easier for Portugal to colonise, with all of the settlers there never feeling like they were developing a separate nation from the motherland, but rather just forming a satellite of Portugal. As happened in Hispanic Latin America, in Lusophone Latin America, many Americans were killed by European diseases and this forced Portugal to turn to slaves from Africa, which they were importing anyway at the time, but would now redirect to the New World. The North of Brazil used to be the most industrious and developed (Salvador do Bahia) but this then moved to the more southern areas of Sao Paolo and Rio, which had better access to the sea and Europe/ Africa
The borders between Spain and Portugal in the New World (i.e. the border between Portuguese-speaking Brazil and Spanish-speaking everywhere else in South America- bar Suriname and Guyana) were fuzzy, but as Portugal kept exploring they were able to lay claim to more land. “Just a bit further,” was their motto and they managed to take 1,500km originally belonging to the Crown of Spain. They settled there and were granted rights to the land.
Due to the growing sugar trade, Brazil imported many slaves from Africa, more than any other American country (remember 40% of African slaves went to Brazil), so this affected the demographics of their country which has a large African descended population compared to neighbours Argentina or Bolivia, (10% of Uruguay, Brazil's neighbour, is black too). This also meant that as the American population disappeared and more slaves and Portuguese made up the population of Brazil, no one felt any loyalty to previous tribes that had been there and no one was around to lament the injustice of the colonisation, compared to Spanish Latin America where more of the indigenous populations survived (possibly because they were greater in number) and had already formed complex, civilised societies that withstood the ravages of European colonialism and barbarity.
Williamson talks about the "genesis" of Latin America (from a European point of view), starting with Spanish and Italian mariners who lay claim to the land they found (I refrain from using the word ‘discovered’ as the Americas were already there; as one friend said rolling her eyes to someone, “You’re like Christopher Columbus, discovering something that was already there!”) The natives of the Americas were largely killed by European diseases and Spanish barbarity. Animals traditionally carry diseases and the Americas had very few animals native to their lands, unlike in Europe or Africa, and so disease was never carried by these animals and passed onto humans. In addition, the populations were never dense and dense populations- think 17th century London during the plague- are hotbeds for contagious diseases, which spread and kill, leaving only the more robust and resistant of the population to procreate. These survivors then pass on their genes to their offspring, who are also fit and immune to diseases which killed off many who never had a chance to reproduce and spread their genes.
The Spanish and Portuguese Crowns were having trouble finding native American labour to extract gold, extract silver and harvest sugar as the population was rapidly diminishing due to European germs and barbarity. Over a century before coming to the New World, the Portuguese had set up a slave trade from west Africa and with few labourers to work the land, they diverted the slave trade to Brazil. Africa, having many native animals (who carried diseases, infected the peoples, had the disease spread around thriving populations and cities and left only the fittest behind) meant that Africans were more immune to diseases carried over by Europeans, the same diseases which ended up decimating the American population. The Crown then decided to switch to using African slaves, with Brazil taking over 40% of the African slaves sent to South America.
The Spaniards had a three-tier system or a “dual republic” with Americans on one side and “peninsulares”, that is, people from peninsular Spain on the other. But as there were many male conquistadores and settlers from Spain and only American women, the two mixed and a caste system developed, giving privileges depending on origin and skin colour, leading to a three-tiered system. This gave rise to names like mestizo, castizo, mulatto as people of European, American and African origin mixed. There were peninsulares from Spain, creoles who were of Spanish origin but were born in the Americas and the native American population. Ostensibly, the Crown’s objective was to “Christianise” the native peoples, arguing that they were savage people in need of saving. As they said this, they tugged nervously at their shirt collars, knowing how insanely advanced the Mayans, the Aztecs and others were, despite their lack of belief in a European god. Working for wages was a foreign concept to the American populations, as they were used to bartering and trading for items that they wanted and so the Spanish Crown had to force them to work through the encomienda system. Native Americans were thus the only ones in Latin America who were forced to pay tribute to the Crown (through labour) and creoles and peninsulares were exempt from paying tribute, which is probably why the Crown stayed in power so long. Queen Isabella (Crown of Castile, 1492) from the beginning said that she didn’t want the native Americans to be enslaved and then she sort of turned her head back, winked and said that the encomienda system would be fine. This was essentially slavery as the wages were paltry and the Americans were forced to work against their own will. Gradually, the Americans got absorbed into Hispanic towns and as their numbers dwindled due to lack of immunity to European disease, aggression and poor living conditions, they were forced to work for Europeans in order to survive.
The Crown was a unifying force but the Latin American states saw themselves as independent, with each nascent nation, having kept a lot from its culture. You can see this today in Peru, where Quechua is still spoken in some parts and amongst the different cultural events in each country which pay homage not only to Catholicism (a late phenomenon for them) but also incorporates aspects of their ancestral religions and beliefs. As more creoles were born and they became a majority, they began to see Spain as the overbearing parent. This is different to Brazil, where Americans were fewer in number and were dispersed around the continent, with some practicing cannibalism. For the Crown of Portugal, this was proof enough of their savagery so there were never any of the moral conundrums that the Spanish Crown fought over, when they preached Christianity on the one hand but then exhibited very unChristian behaviour on the other. In addition, as the native people were spread out and there was no unifying culture (like there was in the Andes for example), it was easier for Portugal to colonise, with all of the settlers there never feeling like they were developing a separate nation from the motherland, but rather just forming a satellite of Portugal. As happened in Hispanic Latin America, in Lusophone Latin America, many Americans were killed by European diseases and this forced Portugal to turn to slaves from Africa, which they were importing anyway at the time, but would now redirect to the New World. The North of Brazil used to be the most industrious and developed (Salvador do Bahia) but this then moved to the more southern areas of Sao Paolo and Rio, which had better access to the sea and Europe/ Africa
The borders between Spain and Portugal in the New World (i.e. the border between Portuguese-speaking Brazil and Spanish-speaking everywhere else in South America- bar Suriname and Guyana) were fuzzy, but as Portugal kept exploring they were able to lay claim to more land. “Just a bit further,” was their motto and they managed to take 1,500km originally belonging to the Crown of Spain. They settled there and were granted rights to the land.
Due to the growing sugar trade, Brazil imported many slaves from Africa, more than any other American country (remember 40% of African slaves went to Brazil), so this affected the demographics of their country which has a large African descended population compared to neighbours Argentina or Bolivia, (10% of Uruguay, Brazil's neighbour, is black too). This also meant that as the American population disappeared and more slaves and Portuguese made up the population of Brazil, no one felt any loyalty to previous tribes that had been there and no one was around to lament the injustice of the colonisation, compared to Spanish Latin America where more of the indigenous populations survived (possibly because they were greater in number) and had already formed complex, civilised societies that withstood the ravages of European colonialism and barbarity.
November 10, 2025
En av de mest spennende bøkene jeg har lest i det siste. Den tar for seg historien til Sør-Amerika (her alt fra Mexico og sørover) fra 1492, og den spanske og portugisiske historien som ledet opp til Colombus’ oppdagelser.
Store deler av boken går på å utforske hvordan samfunnene i de ulike spanske «Vice royalties»’ene ble skapt og hvilke implikasjoner det har for dagens Sør Amerikanske samfunn. Jeg kunne så godt som ingenting om dette fra før, men jeg kan nå definitivt skjønne kulturen og valgene deres bedre.
Neste del av boken går inn på samfunnene og nasjonbyggingen fra uavhengigheten fra Spania og Portugal fra 1810-tallet og utover. Spennende å lese om kulturen som oppsto rundt denne tiden, og overraskende å lese at Rio de Janeiro en gang var hovedstaden i Portugal.
Siste del av boken går ut på å beskrive politikken fra slutten av 1800-tallet og frem til i dag. Det er veldig mye fokus på økonomiske valg og svært mange ulike forfattere og verk nevnes, noe som gjorde det litt vanskelig å henge med til tider.
Jeg synes det er trist at et kontinent med så stort potensiale gjør det forholdsvis dårlig i forhold til mange andre land i dag, og jeg kan dessverre ikke se hvordan ting skal bli veldig mye bedre på lang sikt når nesten alle mulige slags ideologier er blitt prøvd der siden 1810-tallet uten en stor grad av langvarig suksess. Jeg tror de største problemene deres i dag er splittende samfunn, mye ulikhet, stor grad av eksponering til råvarepriser og ofte få gode insentiver til å starte bedrifter.
Jeg vil definitivt anbefale denne boken videre. Jeg forstår at den får kritikk for å ikke fokusere like mye på andre land i Sør Amerika enn de større, men hadde jeg skrevet en bok om Europa for nybegynnere hadde jeg nok ikke begynt med å skrive om Norge, men heller fokusert på England, Frankrike, Italia og Spania for å nevne noen.
Store deler av boken går på å utforske hvordan samfunnene i de ulike spanske «Vice royalties»’ene ble skapt og hvilke implikasjoner det har for dagens Sør Amerikanske samfunn. Jeg kunne så godt som ingenting om dette fra før, men jeg kan nå definitivt skjønne kulturen og valgene deres bedre.
Neste del av boken går inn på samfunnene og nasjonbyggingen fra uavhengigheten fra Spania og Portugal fra 1810-tallet og utover. Spennende å lese om kulturen som oppsto rundt denne tiden, og overraskende å lese at Rio de Janeiro en gang var hovedstaden i Portugal.
Siste del av boken går ut på å beskrive politikken fra slutten av 1800-tallet og frem til i dag. Det er veldig mye fokus på økonomiske valg og svært mange ulike forfattere og verk nevnes, noe som gjorde det litt vanskelig å henge med til tider.
Jeg synes det er trist at et kontinent med så stort potensiale gjør det forholdsvis dårlig i forhold til mange andre land i dag, og jeg kan dessverre ikke se hvordan ting skal bli veldig mye bedre på lang sikt når nesten alle mulige slags ideologier er blitt prøvd der siden 1810-tallet uten en stor grad av langvarig suksess. Jeg tror de største problemene deres i dag er splittende samfunn, mye ulikhet, stor grad av eksponering til råvarepriser og ofte få gode insentiver til å starte bedrifter.
Jeg vil definitivt anbefale denne boken videre. Jeg forstår at den får kritikk for å ikke fokusere like mye på andre land i Sør Amerika enn de større, men hadde jeg skrevet en bok om Europa for nybegynnere hadde jeg nok ikke begynt med å skrive om Norge, men heller fokusert på England, Frankrike, Italia og Spania for å nevne noen.
July 6, 2010
certainly a good introductory volume, but it was as dry as the atacama desert. here's to hoping i retain something after a disciplined plow through the book.
August 28, 2024
I've developed an unexpected interest in Latin America and I'm not quite sure where it came from but I'm pleased because it's history is facinating.
I wouldn't say this was the best book for me to start with because it's so in depth that it can become overwhelming and a very slow read but I'm glad I read it all the same, even if it took me over a month.
A lot of the terminology is dated to the point where it got somehwhat frustrating but I guess that is to be expected from a book that was originally published 32 years ago (..1992, disgusting). I was talking with a Brazilian friend of mine who was correcting me on some terms that I was picking up in the book so it felt like I was learning, fact checking and then rapidly unlearning as I progressed through it.
The book did also give me the names of some more colonizers to hate with all my heart so there's that too. Francisco Pizarro, John Hawkins (less of a colonizer, more of a slave trader), Hernan Cortes ... you're all on my shit list, congratulations.
I will in the future be reading Latin American history books written by Latin Americans though 👍🏼
I wouldn't say this was the best book for me to start with because it's so in depth that it can become overwhelming and a very slow read but I'm glad I read it all the same, even if it took me over a month.
A lot of the terminology is dated to the point where it got somehwhat frustrating but I guess that is to be expected from a book that was originally published 32 years ago (..1992, disgusting). I was talking with a Brazilian friend of mine who was correcting me on some terms that I was picking up in the book so it felt like I was learning, fact checking and then rapidly unlearning as I progressed through it.
The book did also give me the names of some more colonizers to hate with all my heart so there's that too. Francisco Pizarro, John Hawkins (less of a colonizer, more of a slave trader), Hernan Cortes ... you're all on my shit list, congratulations.
I will in the future be reading Latin American history books written by Latin Americans though 👍🏼
February 27, 2018
Summarising the entire history of any part of the world is a colossal undertaking. And with Edwin Williamson's The Penguin History of Latin America, the geographical scope is enormous. This work lives up to its title in encompassing not only most of South America (other than the Guianas), but Central America, and substantial portions of the Caribbean and North America.
A certain amount of attention is also paid to Iberian history, and by extension its interactions with broader European history (both continental and colonial), other powers like the British, French and Dutch meddle from time to time, and of course the spectre of the USA looms large from at least the Mexican-American War onwards.
The original was published in 1990. This second edition from 2009 features an additional chapter on the intervening two decades (including the elephant in the room that is Hugo Chavez) and ends on the uncertainties in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis.
Of the many possible approaches to a subject of this scope, Williamson has found a good balance. The chapters and sub-chapters are logically laid out, sketching the big picture of a given time period and then detailing affairs in a specific major nation.
The principle focus in most chapters is on economics and politics, particularly as they impact on social aspects. Theology is discussed to the extent that it interacts with these. The complexities of ethnicity are frequently discussed. Titanic figures like Bolivar, Peron and Castro are touched on, but Williamson clearly doesn't subscribe to 'Great Man Theory' and leans towards the underlying currents of group needs, desires and ideology shaping history.
Military matters are only sketched in outline, which is a prudent choice as on this scale the outcome of campaigns is all that matters. Pleasingly, Williamson is also a literary scholar and devotes substantial attention to the cultural and literary traditions which are so inescapably intertwined with their historical context. This is an aspect which has the potential to be overlooked or undervalued in many history books, but is vital in a book of this style which emphasises issues of ethnic, nationalist and cultural identity that are unique in their qualities to this part of the world.
This is undoubtedly popular history, being light on footnotes albeit with an extensive appendix of suggested further reading which is a gold mine in itself. And yet, it succeeds admirably at not feeling so reductive and cursory in its treatment of each aspect as may be expected in a work on such an enormous scale.
The language is functional, being neither too dryly academic nor too breezily informal, so mostly the tone is spot on. Occasionally however, I'm left scratching my head as to why Williamson made certain choices. A couple of examples:
It strikes me as strange to frame the suppression of debate or dissent by a dictatorial leader as representing a 'relief' from the same. I suspect this is not what he really means so perhaps some editing of this paragraph would help.
By 'profane', is he merely attempting to highlight that the tradition has lost its original religious impetus, or is he opinionating? What does this add to the readers' understanding? It seems the sentence would function perfectly without 'quite profane'.
He also seems oddly insistent on giving glowing appellations to leaders such as 'intelligent', 'genius' and 'incorruptible'. Such unnecessary adjectivising doesn't sit well with what generally appears intended as a factual rather than narrative history.
And I do understand that questions of terminology are heavily debated as to which are the most correct and/or acceptable. I'll leave that to qualified people to engage in, but as a general reader I am prepared to accept that Williamson was attempting to use terms such as 'Indian' in a neutral and detached manner as befitting a history text.
Whilst I could nitpick, on balance I feel Williamson did a commendable job of painting such a large canvas and I doubt anyone could do dramatically better at comparable length. It has provided the jumping off point I need for explorations into more narrowly focused texts on the region and its cultures, and more emotionally invested ones such as Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano or The Motorcycle Diaries by Che Guevara. I also look forward to reading his biography of Borges.
A certain amount of attention is also paid to Iberian history, and by extension its interactions with broader European history (both continental and colonial), other powers like the British, French and Dutch meddle from time to time, and of course the spectre of the USA looms large from at least the Mexican-American War onwards.
The original was published in 1990. This second edition from 2009 features an additional chapter on the intervening two decades (including the elephant in the room that is Hugo Chavez) and ends on the uncertainties in the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis.
Of the many possible approaches to a subject of this scope, Williamson has found a good balance. The chapters and sub-chapters are logically laid out, sketching the big picture of a given time period and then detailing affairs in a specific major nation.
The principle focus in most chapters is on economics and politics, particularly as they impact on social aspects. Theology is discussed to the extent that it interacts with these. The complexities of ethnicity are frequently discussed. Titanic figures like Bolivar, Peron and Castro are touched on, but Williamson clearly doesn't subscribe to 'Great Man Theory' and leans towards the underlying currents of group needs, desires and ideology shaping history.
Military matters are only sketched in outline, which is a prudent choice as on this scale the outcome of campaigns is all that matters. Pleasingly, Williamson is also a literary scholar and devotes substantial attention to the cultural and literary traditions which are so inescapably intertwined with their historical context. This is an aspect which has the potential to be overlooked or undervalued in many history books, but is vital in a book of this style which emphasises issues of ethnic, nationalist and cultural identity that are unique in their qualities to this part of the world.
This is undoubtedly popular history, being light on footnotes albeit with an extensive appendix of suggested further reading which is a gold mine in itself. And yet, it succeeds admirably at not feeling so reductive and cursory in its treatment of each aspect as may be expected in a work on such an enormous scale.
The language is functional, being neither too dryly academic nor too breezily informal, so mostly the tone is spot on. Occasionally however, I'm left scratching my head as to why Williamson made certain choices. A couple of examples:
Here too constitutional government had failed to take root; only the periodic rule of a strongman offered some relief from the bitter quarrels between Catholic conservatives and anti-clerical liberals over the issues of regional autonomy and the role of the Church.
It strikes me as strange to frame the suppression of debate or dissent by a dictatorial leader as representing a 'relief' from the same. I suspect this is not what he really means so perhaps some editing of this paragraph would help.
In addition to offering social welfare, irmandades organised religious festivals, where the various ethnic groups found an outlet for cultural expression. (The practice survives today in the quite profane context of the Carnival at Rio de Janeiro, for which elaborate floats and parades are prepared by 'samba schools' formed largely by blacks and mulattos from different poor neighbourhoods.)
By 'profane', is he merely attempting to highlight that the tradition has lost its original religious impetus, or is he opinionating? What does this add to the readers' understanding? It seems the sentence would function perfectly without 'quite profane'.
He also seems oddly insistent on giving glowing appellations to leaders such as 'intelligent', 'genius' and 'incorruptible'. Such unnecessary adjectivising doesn't sit well with what generally appears intended as a factual rather than narrative history.
And I do understand that questions of terminology are heavily debated as to which are the most correct and/or acceptable. I'll leave that to qualified people to engage in, but as a general reader I am prepared to accept that Williamson was attempting to use terms such as 'Indian' in a neutral and detached manner as befitting a history text.
Whilst I could nitpick, on balance I feel Williamson did a commendable job of painting such a large canvas and I doubt anyone could do dramatically better at comparable length. It has provided the jumping off point I need for explorations into more narrowly focused texts on the region and its cultures, and more emotionally invested ones such as Open Veins of Latin America by Eduardo Galeano or The Motorcycle Diaries by Che Guevara. I also look forward to reading his biography of Borges.
March 7, 2024
This book gives a comprehensive overview of Latin American history. From the Aztec Empire until the present era, the book covers the history of different countries within South America.
From the beginning, there is information on the Native American population that lived in pre-Spanish Americas. It gives an understanding as to why Spain conquered Central and South America so effectively. The book dispels the idea that horses and guns were the reason and instead argues that the success of the Spanish was down to the Spanish effectively pitting different Native American groups against each other. This allowed them to conquer the Americas without being a small ethnic group. That and also inadvertently spreading Smallpox to the native population. Of the 100 million people who lived in America before the colonisation, 90 million died of Smallpox.
The book talks about the various sociological issues of colonisation that for example only 6% of those colonising were women and that meant Spanish men would marry native women. It was taken to such an extreme that it was known that in Argentina, polygamy became rife as there was a strong female to male imbalance.
One thing this book gives an understanding of is just how influential the Catholic church was over Latin American society. The entire society was controlled by a semi-theocracy in which the church controlled education, hospitals and social care alongside it being a religious institution.
Raw material exports became a mainstay of the Latin American economy and there was an attempt to industrialise around the turn of the 20th century as landowners had not reinvested export profits into more productivity but instead into more consumer imports. The industrialisation based on import substitution was a mixed bag, leaving some improvements in industrial output but with higher inflation. This was eventually undone with globalisation and neo-liberal economics.
The book gave a fascinating overview of Latin American history. Whilst it is quite long, I would recommend it if you want to gain a greater insight into Latin American history.
From the beginning, there is information on the Native American population that lived in pre-Spanish Americas. It gives an understanding as to why Spain conquered Central and South America so effectively. The book dispels the idea that horses and guns were the reason and instead argues that the success of the Spanish was down to the Spanish effectively pitting different Native American groups against each other. This allowed them to conquer the Americas without being a small ethnic group. That and also inadvertently spreading Smallpox to the native population. Of the 100 million people who lived in America before the colonisation, 90 million died of Smallpox.
The book talks about the various sociological issues of colonisation that for example only 6% of those colonising were women and that meant Spanish men would marry native women. It was taken to such an extreme that it was known that in Argentina, polygamy became rife as there was a strong female to male imbalance.
One thing this book gives an understanding of is just how influential the Catholic church was over Latin American society. The entire society was controlled by a semi-theocracy in which the church controlled education, hospitals and social care alongside it being a religious institution.
Raw material exports became a mainstay of the Latin American economy and there was an attempt to industrialise around the turn of the 20th century as landowners had not reinvested export profits into more productivity but instead into more consumer imports. The industrialisation based on import substitution was a mixed bag, leaving some improvements in industrial output but with higher inflation. This was eventually undone with globalisation and neo-liberal economics.
The book gave a fascinating overview of Latin American history. Whilst it is quite long, I would recommend it if you want to gain a greater insight into Latin American history.
February 16, 2017
Williamson's history of Latin America succeeds far more than one has any right to expect. He has struck the perfect balance between breadth and depth -- a daunting task considering the amount of time, geographical area, governments, and personalities he must describe. All of this could be overwhelming when dealing with only one Latin American country, let alone all of them. Certainly the book should be considered an introduction: read it to get a relatively quick and quite substantial grounding, not to learn everything there is to know about Latin America. Especially the closer you get to the present, there's just too damn much going on, and you're just going to have to bite the bullet and read a few more books to get a grasp on it (especially as this history ends at about 1990).
Finally, here are a few of my favorite things about the book:
1. Reading about people like Cortes and Coronado for the first time since about the fifth grade.
2. Realizing how vital an understanding of Latin America is for a true understanding of my own country.
3. Williamson anchors the first and second halves of the book in two fascinating chapters on the arts, especially literature -- an apt technique in attempting to tie together such a diverse history in an area of the world where poets and novelists have played such a vital role in social and political developments (up to and including becoming senators and presidents).
Finally, here are a few of my favorite things about the book:
1. Reading about people like Cortes and Coronado for the first time since about the fifth grade.
2. Realizing how vital an understanding of Latin America is for a true understanding of my own country.
3. Williamson anchors the first and second halves of the book in two fascinating chapters on the arts, especially literature -- an apt technique in attempting to tie together such a diverse history in an area of the world where poets and novelists have played such a vital role in social and political developments (up to and including becoming senators and presidents).
September 30, 2024
Aquest llibre ofereix una visió bastant general dels diversos pobles i civilitzacions de l'Amèrica precolombina, continuant amb les conquestes de, principalment, els imperis Azteca i Inca, i continuant amb l'explicació de les estructures organitzatives dels virregnats de la Monarquia Hispànica i Lusa a Amèrica, així com l'evolució política, social, econòmica i de les relacions amb la Península Ibèrica d'aquests. Posteriorment, el llibre descriu els processos d'independència i, més tard, se centra en la història contemporània de les diverses monarquies i repúbliques sorgides, començant per les lluites entre liberals i conservadors i continuant amb el sorgiment dels nacionalismes, les ingerències estatunidenques i les diverses revolucions i guerres fins arribar al segle XXI.
Com he dit, és recomanable per adquirir una visió general, però en cap cas si es vol profunditzar, especialment, en l'Amèrica precolombina o de l'edat moderna.
Com he dit, és recomanable per adquirir una visió general, però en cap cas si es vol profunditzar, especialment, en l'Amèrica precolombina o de l'edat moderna.
March 19, 2018
Informative and good in parts but really lacking in critical analysis. It's chapters on Argentina, Cuba and Chile lacked balance on the whole and descended into dry analysis about exports. It's paucity of certain facts regarding insurgency movements unfortunately made me distrust it's analysis of Mexico, about which I know very little. I put this down to the fact it was published in 1992 but given that the writer was he Professor for Hispanic Studies you'd think he'd be better informed. Strong on a cold eyed analysis of what went wrong economically, poor on meaningful dissection of Latin American society. Too much received wisdom, not enough balance.
August 10, 2011
When I first started reading this, I knew very little about Central and South America. This book does a great job of explaining the social, economic, and cultural factors that all intermix to create the tensions and troubles that have plagued this part of the world both before and after the Europeans arrived. I love it because it tells me the "why" of what happened, and not just the "what." All the while, it stays very academic and objective, without glorifying or criticizing what the Europeans did as they settled in to the area.
August 9, 2011
Such a well-written and easy-to read-book. Gives a thorough one-volume coverage of Latin American history, and it's disturbing that anyone can know so much about so many things! Particularly enjopyed the material on literature.
August 4, 2016
Super helpful for students studying the major countries of Latin America, gives a variety of viewpoints & is so condensed that it was very easy to pick out important points. Probably some prior knowledge is needed before reading.
November 29, 2016
great overview
July 27, 2020
This is a well written introduction to the history of Latin America from the age of conquest to the near present day (the last section in the second edition concerns political and economic events in each of the countries from 1990 to 2010), written by a former Oxford professor of Spanish, that is fair-minded and politically neutral, recognising both the strengths and weaknesses of conservative and Catholic, capitalist and liberal, and socialist and indigenous interpretations of society.
It's main theme is the search for identity both across central and south America and within individual nations, particularly after the collapse of the Spanish empire with the Napoleonic invasions of the Iberian peninsula, and in view of the difficulties of government in profoundly unequal societies riven by racial and cultural differences between those of pre-Columban, native Indian extraction, and those whose descent is from the Spanish creoles, or of mixed heritage. or, especially in Brazil, from African slaves.
The question that hangs over the book, particularly in the chapters dealing with the twentieth century, is why Latin America, so blessed in natural resources, has fallen behind in development compared to Asia, and why its post-colonial societies and governments have been less stable than other states where democracy, although later in development, appears to have taken firmer root? Edwin Williamson's argument is founded upon the failure of Latin America to form an accepted cross-cultural, unifying identity to succeed that of the Spanish and Portuguese Catholic empires after Independence, with the post-colonial states instead becoming divided societies with differing political and social traditions that find it all but impossible to coalesce around a shared identity and a multicultural and multiethnic but inclusive understanding of a shared past. And it is these fundamental divisions about who are the Latin Americans, between the indigenous and those of extra-American origins, between the Catholics and the liberal secularists, and between the Left, often represented by Marxist social revolutionaries, and the Right, with its association with autocracy and dictatorship, that lie at the heart of the region's inability to maximise its potential.
However, while this search for a unifying identity may have undermined the Latin American countries' political and social development compared to those of others on other continents, there is no doubt of the huge cultural achievement of Spanish and Portuguese America, particularly in literature, with poets like Paz and Neruda, and novelists like Gabriel Marquez and Vargas Llosa, matching and often exceeding the achievements of their European contemporaries, and this Williamson explores in a lively and enlightening chapter.
Latin America and its history are vast subjects, but Williamson in this one volume does a sterling job of bringing all the threads of over five hundred years of the past into a manageable form for the general reader, and while he provides no conclusive answers, his questions and the themes he explores help to make more comprehensible what are often seen as enigmatic central and south American societies, at least to the British reader more familiar with the old world histories of Spain and Portugal.
It's main theme is the search for identity both across central and south America and within individual nations, particularly after the collapse of the Spanish empire with the Napoleonic invasions of the Iberian peninsula, and in view of the difficulties of government in profoundly unequal societies riven by racial and cultural differences between those of pre-Columban, native Indian extraction, and those whose descent is from the Spanish creoles, or of mixed heritage. or, especially in Brazil, from African slaves.
The question that hangs over the book, particularly in the chapters dealing with the twentieth century, is why Latin America, so blessed in natural resources, has fallen behind in development compared to Asia, and why its post-colonial societies and governments have been less stable than other states where democracy, although later in development, appears to have taken firmer root? Edwin Williamson's argument is founded upon the failure of Latin America to form an accepted cross-cultural, unifying identity to succeed that of the Spanish and Portuguese Catholic empires after Independence, with the post-colonial states instead becoming divided societies with differing political and social traditions that find it all but impossible to coalesce around a shared identity and a multicultural and multiethnic but inclusive understanding of a shared past. And it is these fundamental divisions about who are the Latin Americans, between the indigenous and those of extra-American origins, between the Catholics and the liberal secularists, and between the Left, often represented by Marxist social revolutionaries, and the Right, with its association with autocracy and dictatorship, that lie at the heart of the region's inability to maximise its potential.
However, while this search for a unifying identity may have undermined the Latin American countries' political and social development compared to those of others on other continents, there is no doubt of the huge cultural achievement of Spanish and Portuguese America, particularly in literature, with poets like Paz and Neruda, and novelists like Gabriel Marquez and Vargas Llosa, matching and often exceeding the achievements of their European contemporaries, and this Williamson explores in a lively and enlightening chapter.
Latin America and its history are vast subjects, but Williamson in this one volume does a sterling job of bringing all the threads of over five hundred years of the past into a manageable form for the general reader, and while he provides no conclusive answers, his questions and the themes he explores help to make more comprehensible what are often seen as enigmatic central and south American societies, at least to the British reader more familiar with the old world histories of Spain and Portugal.
April 21, 2025
DNF.
If you think a 'fully updated and revised' history of Latin America would be compassionate to the natives of the New World, you'd be sorely mistaken. This history is a hot mess. Readers need to have some current context before reading because woof. Cortes's razing of Tenochtitlan "splendid" (page 21). Native groups are colloquially called "Indians" through out, tribal names of unique groups of people only mentioned infrequently. Bartolome de las Casas is mentioned once in passing (pg 15), and his details of Spaniard abuse absent (while the author continues to say women were 'naked and offered themselves freely to the strangers" (p 9). Columbus is portrayed as innocent of any atrocity (it was those under him who he ~tried~ to control that did every single bad thing). In fact, in one of his frequent recalls to Spain is labeled as "Columbus went back to Spain to defend himself against slanders put about by disgruntled colonists." To talk about what Spain wanted from the indigenous peoples, lust for gold and wanton disregard for the sanctity of life is summed up as "The Spaniards were seeking goods and services which the indigenous societies were simply not equipped to provide." Like, in a really watered-down reading, that's theoretically correct, but it completely glosses over atrocities against humanity by reducing colonization as a simple matter of 'goods and services.'
I thought I could plow through, but I could simply not. An 'updated' history this is not. It's got a glossy new cover but a ridiculously European-centered regurgitation of glory within.
If you think a 'fully updated and revised' history of Latin America would be compassionate to the natives of the New World, you'd be sorely mistaken. This history is a hot mess. Readers need to have some current context before reading because woof. Cortes's razing of Tenochtitlan "splendid" (page 21). Native groups are colloquially called "Indians" through out, tribal names of unique groups of people only mentioned infrequently. Bartolome de las Casas is mentioned once in passing (pg 15), and his details of Spaniard abuse absent (while the author continues to say women were 'naked and offered themselves freely to the strangers" (p 9). Columbus is portrayed as innocent of any atrocity (it was those under him who he ~tried~ to control that did every single bad thing). In fact, in one of his frequent recalls to Spain is labeled as "Columbus went back to Spain to defend himself against slanders put about by disgruntled colonists." To talk about what Spain wanted from the indigenous peoples, lust for gold and wanton disregard for the sanctity of life is summed up as "The Spaniards were seeking goods and services which the indigenous societies were simply not equipped to provide." Like, in a really watered-down reading, that's theoretically correct, but it completely glosses over atrocities against humanity by reducing colonization as a simple matter of 'goods and services.'
I thought I could plow through, but I could simply not. An 'updated' history this is not. It's got a glossy new cover but a ridiculously European-centered regurgitation of glory within.
January 24, 2025
Being jam-packed with interests, this book is great as a citation encyclopedia. It’s great for people who’s looking to do a quick research on Latin America, but personally I was looking to pique my interests and get hooked on the plot as a side quest. Hence, the -1 ⭐️ for minor grievance I had for the book.
Aside from this, I was intrigued and appreciative of the fact that it unfurls the history to me from a socioeconomic bird eye view that inspired me to introspect the link to my own history (SEA). It shrinks people down to the size of ant colonies and condense decades into matter of 1-2 worth page of analysis. I was particularly inspired by the straightforward nature of historical accounts of each government, especially their tired struggles with economy, balancing public acceptance, re-/establishing economic nationalism. It reads like an endless quest of mega social experiments since the day of Spanish colonization — which really puts science in political science for me.
I got into it blind without realzing how nuanced the history of latin America could be. So, I would recommend this to anyone with an already established background of the region (unlike me). Nonetheless, there were key subject indexes in the book that piqued my curiosity, like Cuba communism, and Peronism.
Aside from this, I was intrigued and appreciative of the fact that it unfurls the history to me from a socioeconomic bird eye view that inspired me to introspect the link to my own history (SEA). It shrinks people down to the size of ant colonies and condense decades into matter of 1-2 worth page of analysis. I was particularly inspired by the straightforward nature of historical accounts of each government, especially their tired struggles with economy, balancing public acceptance, re-/establishing economic nationalism. It reads like an endless quest of mega social experiments since the day of Spanish colonization — which really puts science in political science for me.
I got into it blind without realzing how nuanced the history of latin America could be. So, I would recommend this to anyone with an already established background of the region (unlike me). Nonetheless, there were key subject indexes in the book that piqued my curiosity, like Cuba communism, and Peronism.
December 9, 2020
This is a good entry book to learn about the history of Latin America. It helps get a broad understanding of this great land mass and its people. The edition I read- which I bought in a 2nd hand book-shop - starts with the earliest recorded history of the great cultured civilisations (e.g. Aztecs) and brings the reader right up to the modern day - in the late 1980's/early 1990's. It is a book well illustrated, with maps showing the changing face of Latin America through the ages.
Like every other history of this great continent, the book finds it hard to explain why so many of South America's highly developed civilisations - the Maya in Central America, the Aztecs of Mexico, the Zapotecs of Columbia, the Incas in Peru, the Atacama in Chile etc. - seemed to disappear in an instant without trace, leaving highly developed cities and writings in their wake. This is no fault of the book; many historians have struggled to provide answers to this great conundrum. This mystery only adds to the fascinating story of this vast land mass.
The book takes the reader through the arrival of the Portugese, the Spaniards, the British and French and how they ravaged the land to produce for export, with little or no benefit for the indigenous inhabitants. While the Europeans certainly conquered by force in many cases, the disease they brought with them devastated the local tribes, massively reducing their numbers. This drove the need to import slaves from Africa in order that production rates could be maintained and increased. As time moved on, the Europeans formed alliances with local tribes - the result being a strange mish-mash from which a new South American elite was born.
For quite some time, the new arrivals remained loyal to the monarchies in Spain and Portugal - until they realised that because they were so far away, they perhaps should have these new lands to themselves. The book outlines - country by country - how self government evolved away from Europe.
Part of the new elite was establishing itself further inland, away from the coast. They developed a new society built around the hacienda/large land-owner. It was patriarchal by nature but not always benign. The book lays out how the gap widened between the urban elite, established in the cities to control exports to Europe, and those running operations in the haciendas (i.e. managing slaves and local people to cultivate the land for food export). Power struggles developed and a version of democracy (where only both elites had a say) developed into a kind of democratic governing structure. South America was no longer experiencing a power struggle between the continent and their masters in Europe, but one between the 2 new elites.
Sometimes the "democratic" path wasn't taken. Some power struggles manifested themselves in revolution - sometimes by locals against the invaders, other times between rural and urban. The strange history of emerging revolutions and despots had arrived. Those revolutions continue to the present day.
Reflecting on the book, it is strange how Europe managed to distribute wealth among its lower and middle classes, in turn largely eliminating the worst elements of poverty. The widening of the European community model is central to the European mindset (bearing in mind, Brexit is the exception proving the rule). My own country, Ireland, is vastly wealthier than when we entered the EEC in the 70's as a basket case. This sense of philanthropy never seems to have entered the South American psyche.
The book describes how South America failed to develop beyond an exporter of primary, raw material to other continents. The elite failed utterly to produce secondary product of its own - for its own markets - in order to reduce its dependency on Europe and North America. It never put much effort into creating its own industry which would produce for its own markets and provide employment. The elite seemed unable to look beyond a "fast buck" for itself in order to continue to maintain the elite at the expense of the poor.
When demand for its primary product failed in the New World from time to time (e.g. sugar etc.) there appeared to be no plan B by the ruling elite of South America - the result always that the poor became poorer. That mind-set of the elite getting rich at the expense of their poorer brethern is quite quite at odds with the European mindset. The European project (which has very little natural resources in comparison to South America) seems to have evolved for the greater good, not just the elite. The European mindset is one of taking care of those less well off. It seems it never entered the heads of the corrupt elite in South America to copy that element of the industrial model. Their management (or mismanagement) of the continental economy has created the present day situation where most nations have a majority of people in poverty, without access to health-care, housing, basic sanitation etc. The exception to this is perhaps Argentina, proving the rule.
The book outlines all the great revolutions, and why. It brings you through all the Latin heroes and why. It gives chapters to its cultures - its artists, musicians, dancers and theatre heroes. It also explains why many despots got into power - and stayed there - and describes the corrupt relationships these regimes had with North America and large corporations (particularly oil). It is a continent that seems to have sold off its crown jewels for very little benefit.
It is a land untouched by either World War and one rarely reported on in this part of the world. I have always been fascinated by it. This book hit the spot for me on many counts.
Like every other history of this great continent, the book finds it hard to explain why so many of South America's highly developed civilisations - the Maya in Central America, the Aztecs of Mexico, the Zapotecs of Columbia, the Incas in Peru, the Atacama in Chile etc. - seemed to disappear in an instant without trace, leaving highly developed cities and writings in their wake. This is no fault of the book; many historians have struggled to provide answers to this great conundrum. This mystery only adds to the fascinating story of this vast land mass.
The book takes the reader through the arrival of the Portugese, the Spaniards, the British and French and how they ravaged the land to produce for export, with little or no benefit for the indigenous inhabitants. While the Europeans certainly conquered by force in many cases, the disease they brought with them devastated the local tribes, massively reducing their numbers. This drove the need to import slaves from Africa in order that production rates could be maintained and increased. As time moved on, the Europeans formed alliances with local tribes - the result being a strange mish-mash from which a new South American elite was born.
For quite some time, the new arrivals remained loyal to the monarchies in Spain and Portugal - until they realised that because they were so far away, they perhaps should have these new lands to themselves. The book outlines - country by country - how self government evolved away from Europe.
Part of the new elite was establishing itself further inland, away from the coast. They developed a new society built around the hacienda/large land-owner. It was patriarchal by nature but not always benign. The book lays out how the gap widened between the urban elite, established in the cities to control exports to Europe, and those running operations in the haciendas (i.e. managing slaves and local people to cultivate the land for food export). Power struggles developed and a version of democracy (where only both elites had a say) developed into a kind of democratic governing structure. South America was no longer experiencing a power struggle between the continent and their masters in Europe, but one between the 2 new elites.
Sometimes the "democratic" path wasn't taken. Some power struggles manifested themselves in revolution - sometimes by locals against the invaders, other times between rural and urban. The strange history of emerging revolutions and despots had arrived. Those revolutions continue to the present day.
Reflecting on the book, it is strange how Europe managed to distribute wealth among its lower and middle classes, in turn largely eliminating the worst elements of poverty. The widening of the European community model is central to the European mindset (bearing in mind, Brexit is the exception proving the rule). My own country, Ireland, is vastly wealthier than when we entered the EEC in the 70's as a basket case. This sense of philanthropy never seems to have entered the South American psyche.
The book describes how South America failed to develop beyond an exporter of primary, raw material to other continents. The elite failed utterly to produce secondary product of its own - for its own markets - in order to reduce its dependency on Europe and North America. It never put much effort into creating its own industry which would produce for its own markets and provide employment. The elite seemed unable to look beyond a "fast buck" for itself in order to continue to maintain the elite at the expense of the poor.
When demand for its primary product failed in the New World from time to time (e.g. sugar etc.) there appeared to be no plan B by the ruling elite of South America - the result always that the poor became poorer. That mind-set of the elite getting rich at the expense of their poorer brethern is quite quite at odds with the European mindset. The European project (which has very little natural resources in comparison to South America) seems to have evolved for the greater good, not just the elite. The European mindset is one of taking care of those less well off. It seems it never entered the heads of the corrupt elite in South America to copy that element of the industrial model. Their management (or mismanagement) of the continental economy has created the present day situation where most nations have a majority of people in poverty, without access to health-care, housing, basic sanitation etc. The exception to this is perhaps Argentina, proving the rule.
The book outlines all the great revolutions, and why. It brings you through all the Latin heroes and why. It gives chapters to its cultures - its artists, musicians, dancers and theatre heroes. It also explains why many despots got into power - and stayed there - and describes the corrupt relationships these regimes had with North America and large corporations (particularly oil). It is a continent that seems to have sold off its crown jewels for very little benefit.
It is a land untouched by either World War and one rarely reported on in this part of the world. I have always been fascinated by it. This book hit the spot for me on many counts.
January 18, 2019
A very consistent and erudite socio-economic and politically oriented interpretation of the post Columbian history of Latin America. It gives a panoramic and high-speed overview of the colonial and post-colonial history and -thanks to the interpretative framework- a convincing explanation of the evolution that continent went through.
Coming from Europe, and visiting Latin America in 2018/2019 whilst reading Williamson’s work, one fails to understand however how the people that one meets are those or the heirs of those who participated in or were the victims of the coups, plots and prisons that Williamson describes with erudite detail.
Coming from Europe, and visiting Latin America in 2018/2019 whilst reading Williamson’s work, one fails to understand however how the people that one meets are those or the heirs of those who participated in or were the victims of the coups, plots and prisons that Williamson describes with erudite detail.
March 18, 2025
The book mostly succeeded in providing me with the general understanding of Latin American development that I was looking for, and it may very well still be the best option in that regard. However, the extent of US involvement in Chile and Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s was hardly discussed. Considering this omission and the many other developments since 2009, this book is overdue for another updated edition.
April 22, 2023
This book stands for a remarkable achievement for covering every aspect of latin american society and doing so with an astonishing depth and wisdom. To give just an example the last chapter consisting of 50 densely printed pages could very well be published standalone as a concise introduction to modern latin american literature!
June 27, 2023
A useful primer for a wide ranging subject. Comes across as dated in some parts. For example it regularly uses the phrase ‘Indians’ to refer to indigenous people. Spends a lot of time on cultural and literary scenes.
For a very high level view this is useful to skim through. If something gets a mention here as a historical event it is worth pursuing further in detail elsewhere.
For a very high level view this is useful to skim through. If something gets a mention here as a historical event it is worth pursuing further in detail elsewhere.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 65 reviews