General Velasco Alvarado in 1968

Hasina566

This, of course, questions many Peruvians about how autonomous we are to design our own path and destiny. blog hum peru 20 jul Currently there are versions in use about Peruvian independence . The first traditional or patriotic position, promot by the oligarchic state before 1968, was that Peruvians of all ethnic and social groups – indigenous, mestizos and criollos – were mobiliz and l by “heroic” criollo leaders in a popular uprising against the Hispanic dominance. This version was taught in all schools and promot the myth of Creole nationalism to unite the nation under elite rule.

The other position was the nationalist and populist revolution of , whose symbol was Túpac Amaru II, who, seeking to vindicate and incorporate the indigenous masses through agrarian reform and other  Middle East Mobile Number List changes, articulat an alternative discourse on indigenous nationalism. This version incorporat indigenous leaders into the pantheon of heroes of Peruvian independence, thus serving in the same way to unify the nation, but this time in a more inclusive and popular way. The previous version was question by a revisionist school, head by Bonilla and Spalding, at the beginning of the 70s.




They stat that nationalism did not exist in Peru in 1820 since the Creoles were not convinc of the ne for independence, since their interests economic and financial were closely link to the old regime. That is, the independence of Peru was understood as an erratic process, in which the Spaniards and Creoles (especially the richest) oppos emancipation because it affect their economic interests and their existence as an important social group in Peru. The fear of a massive indigenous and slave protest, in a country where those knew themselves to be privileg and a minority, would ultimately explain this attitude.