Table of Contents
Introduction
Hello, hello, ready. Thank you.
Well, first I wanted to start by apologizing if my throat fails me, as it seems the change in climate has affected me with a hoarseness that might emerge during the presentation. So, I will keep this water close, which I will surely need. But it's okay, it's not an insurmountable inconvenience. And as I always say, if there are no difficulties, then it isn't Hispanidad. All of us who know history know that the main characteristic of Hispanidad is that it must have a thousand obstacles in front of it.
The second thing is to mention that as a Peruvian—well, they already mentioned my resume in the introduction—but as a Peruvian, I have been taught an artificially fragmented history. Just as I am sure that you, too, have been taught an artificially fragmented history.
Because the history of Peru cannot be understood without the history of Spain, just as the history of Spain cannot be understood without the history of Peru and of New Spain, and of the viceroyalties in general.
When they are separated, and only the history of the Peninsula is taught—I don't say the history of Spain, because Spain was everything, we were all Spain—when only the history of the Peninsula is taught, or Peruvians are only taught the history of Peru, or Mexicans only the history of Mexico, that is when it becomes distorted in such a way that all the Black Legends and artificial confrontations and dichotomies begin, and everything we already know and see plastered everywhere. Starting with schools, books, today social media, movies, and much more.
But this disappears automatically when we begin to see the two histories in parallel, as one. Not as two histories, but as a single history. And when we see it like that, these confrontations, dichotomies, Black Legends, and everything we have heard and that has surely outraged us on more than one occasion, come to an end.
Myth #1: The Spanish “Conquest” (It Was an Inca Civil War)
And to begin, I start with this statue that is in Peru. Difficult, right? But it exists in the city of Lamas. And this statue alone already shatters the entire Black Legend for us. Everything they tell us about the conquest, everything that is so often repeated—that the evil Spaniards came only to rob and plunder and kill the poor, innocent indigenous people—it all falls apart with this statue.
The fact is, when we study the history of Peru, we find that the Inca Empire was in a civil war, a fratricidal war between Huáscar and Atahualpa. Consequently, when Francisco Pizarro arrives, Atahualpa was more worried about Huáscar than about Pizarro himself.
And that answers a question. If Atahualpa was imprisoned in Cajamarca by 200 Spaniards, and outside Cajamarca, he had an army of more than 10,000 people, why didn't he order them to free him? It's logical, right? The most logical thing would have been, "Hey, you 10,000, come and run them over." "Oh, but they had gunpowder." Well, they would have killed 10, 20, 100, 1,000, 5,000, and the other 5,000 would have run them over. Why didn't he do it?
It's because at that moment, Atahualpa's mind was in Cuzco. To such an extent that the order he gave was: "Kill Huáscar."
Notice that. And what did he do with Pizarro? He gave him his sister as a wife. Atahualpa gave Kisp Sisa, who was his sister, to Pizarro as a wife because that was the Inca way of establishing an alliance. The Incas made alliances with the curacas (local lords) by giving relatives—sisters, daughters—and just as many cultures have done.
But it makes us see that from his prison, Atahualpa was looking for how to establish an alliance with Pizarro against Huáscar. He was more afraid that Huáscar would find out he was imprisoned, and that this would mean Cuzco would regain strength against Atahualpa.
Ah, right there the famous myth of the Spaniards who came to kill the Incas begins to collapse.
Cuzco’s “Liberation” and the Hispano-Inca Alliance
Because what we find is that the civil war, the war between brothers, was more worrying than Pizarro himself. And that is why when Huáscar is executed, and Pizarro realizes that there has been a change of power, he executes Atahualpa and travels to Cuzco together with the new Inca, with Manco Inca.
Pizarro is received in Cuzco—and I quote the probanzas (proofs of merit) of the era of Toledo—he is received "con holgura," which means "with festivity," with "joy."
This is something unimaginable for today's indigenism. "Hey, how could Cuzco celebrate the death of the Inca, of Atahualpa? On the contrary, today in Cuzco they are indignant, 'They killed Atahualpa, what a great affront!'" Cuzco celebrated it. Because they saw Atahualpa, rather, as the enemy invader.
Many now say, "Ah, the Spaniards invaded Peru." In Cuzco, they considered Atahualpa more of an invader. And this is stated in the book by José Antonio del Busto, which mentions that the date of the Spanish foundation of Cuzco was [celebrated as] the Spanish foundation and its liberation from the armies of Quito. Because in Cuzco, they saw Atahualpa's men as "those from Quito." Remember, they were from the north, they were in the Chinchaysuyo, which had been very rebellious; there had been uprisings with the Caranquis, with the Kitos, since the time of Huayna Capac, so there was a certain rivalry.
And it is there that we realize that there was no "Spanish side" against an "Inca side." Rather, there was an Atahualpista side, a Huascarista side, and a Pizarrista side. Which later also divided into an Almagrista side, because Pizarro also entered into a civil war with Almagro. And... and we cannot say there was a "Spanish side" as such, because they went to war among themselves.
So, dividing this history into "bad Spaniards" against "good and innocent Incas" falls apart when we begin to understand it this way. And therefore, that is why today there is talk of a Hispano-Inca alliance in the conquest. Not just an alliance with local ethnic groups—Huancas, Huaylas, Chancas, Tallanes—the Incas themselves supported the Spaniards. That is, the Cuzco Incas, the Incas who were against Atahualpa.
And that is why Pedro de Peralta points out that the incorporation of the Kingdom of Peru into the Hispanic Empire was primarily through pacts, rather than by force or war. And we find that when we begin to study the history of Peru outside of ideologies. And it already begins to change what we have always been told, and what often generates a kind of self-flagellation in us, "Oh, the horror of everything Spain did in the world..." and... and seeing what really happened, it collapses.
Myth #2: Peru Was a “Colony” (It Was a Kingdom)
That is why it says that by 1560, the descendants of the Inca panacas (royal lineages) lived comfortably among the Spaniards. They kept their lands, palaces, servants; they received pensions granted by the crown; they administered lucrative economic activities; they were rich nobles with titles granted by royal decrees from the Spanish crown.
And an example is this man you see here: Marcos Chihuano pa Inca. I had the opportunity to see this painting live and in person in Cuzco, and I could read what it says here... Marcos Chihuano pa Inca, from the house of Cápac Yupanqui... "Catholic Inca by the grace of God, and Royal Ensign of the Incas."
This changed everything we've been told. We were told, "Ah, yes, the poor Incas, they were killed, exterminated, eradicated." And we find that in the midst of the viceroyalty, we instead have a Catholic Inca Nobility with noble titles.
And that is why, to this day, a strong Catholicism is maintained in Peru, which we see in the statistics. The most Catholic are the Andean people. And that would have been impossible with a religion imposed by blood and fire. Instead, it was part of this series of pacts where they found conversion to Catholicism to be something favorable.
And that is why the first church founded in Cuzco was not founded by a Spaniard, it was not founded by a priest. It was founded by an Inca: the Church of San Cristóbal. Those who have gone to Cuzco know the Church of San Cristóbal, which is on the way to Sacsayhuamán. Paullu Inca founded it, because he gave part of his lands to found that church. Paullu Inca, son of Huayna Capac.
So, "Hey, how do you explain this? But I had been told that the Spaniards came to impose and subjugate and dominate." And of course, that is said in Peru, we have all been told that, because Spain's political system is not understood. Spain was a "composite monarchy," defined by Solórzano as a "set of kingdoms, states, and lordships under the same monarch, maintaining their institutional and legal identity." This came about with the marriage of Isabella the Catholic and Ferdinand of Aragon, which united the kingdoms...
So, for the mentality of the time, the union of kingdoms was something present. And that was applied in Peru. So now we return to Peru. Peru was a kingdom within the Hispanic Empire. And that is why we find the shield of Peru in the Hall of Realms [in Madrid], where it is next to the shields of the other kingdoms of the empire. And that is why we find the statues of Atahualpa and Moctezuma in the Royal Palace of Madrid. And that is why... it all starts to make sense. The puzzle fits together again.
Furthermore, the version that is told today—of destroying the organizational system the Incas had—would have been extremely stupid and irrational, because it worked. It was efficient. We see it to this day. The chroniclers were the first to marvel at seeing the monuments, the Inca trail... they called it the "Rome of America." So, how amS I going to dismantle that? It makes no sense.
And the organizational system of the Tahuantinsuyo rested on the curacas... the Inca needed alliances with the curacas...
So, it coincided with the system we have explained, that of the composite monarchy. And that is why [the chronicler] Garcilaso mentions it this way: "They respected the 'principales,' as they called the noble curacas, as long as they converted to Catholicism and submitted to the sovereignty of the king." So, "You don't rebel against me, and you get baptized, and you continue doing what you have always done." Something very logical, very efficient too.
Imposing by blood and fire is, rather, irrational. It was a very good strategy, since the Andes already knew it with the Incas. So, "Come on, I am the curaca of the Huancas. The Inca comes, establishes an alliance... Now the Spaniards come, tell me 'an alliance'... 'Okay, just as I have an alliance with the Inca, I can have one with you.'" The system of alliances rested on the authority that local chiefs and caciques still maintained... and they collaborated effectively with the tribute, the mita (labor system), and social order.
So we begin to understand the viceroyalty and we begin to understand how this organization worked, and why it was efficient, and why it had the size it had. I mean, look at what the Viceroyalty of Peru was: from Panama to Patagonia. It was... an extensive territory, larger than all of Europe. You needed a decentralized strategy to govern it.
The Great Shift: The War of the Spanish Succession & the Bourbon Reforms
However, this strategy changes with the most important event in the history of Peru. I have had the opportunity to give many talks in schools, not only to students but to history teachers... and one of the questions I love to ask them is: "Why was the War of the Spanish Succession the most important event in the history of Peru?"
And they freeze. And I get several types of responses. The most common is: "What is the War of the Spanish Succession?" Because I am sure that you have studied it, but in Peru, it never even crossed our minds. They never told us about the War of the Spanish Succession.
So there I show them these maps, and I tell them: "Look, I have the map of Peru in 1542, the one I mentioned, from Panama to Patagonia. And when the Bourbon Reforms arrive, and first the Viceroyalty of New Granada is created, and then the Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata... this is the map of Peru."
Question: Which map is more similar to the current one? And they say, "Ah... so that's where it comes from."
Of course, that's where the borders of Peru come from. Practically most of the Peruvian borders are constituted in the Bourbon Reforms, even more so when the Audiencia of Charcas passes to the Río de la Plata. So the map of Peru happens in large part thanks to the Bourbon Reforms and the change of dynasty between the Habsburgs and the Bourbons.
But there is something more.
Myth #3: Túpac Amaru II, the “Anti-Colonial Rebel”
When the war ends... have you ever wondered what happened to the Austracistas in Spain? Those who were in favor of the Habsburgs and who fought the War of Succession for the Habsburgs?
Did they disappear? Good question, right? Of course, there was a war of succession, and there were Spaniards who fought for the Habsburgs. What happened to them? They didn't stay in Spain. Guess where they went? To the territories of America. And among the territories of America, they ended up in Peru.
And something they don't teach us is the Austracista current in Peru, where we even had Viceroys... and more than 30,000 Spanish Austracistas emigrated... And that generated an Austracista current in Peru.
And that Austracista current... decanted into rebellions. And which was the most important of them?
And we begin to understand what happened with Túpac Amaru II. Another subject submitted to a thousand Black Legends. Ah, Túpac Amaru II today is known as the anti-colonial, anti-Spanish, even anti-Catholic, anti-system, anti-oppression, anti-domination leader. The hero of anti-colonialism in America. Almost an Andean Che Guevara. That is how they paint Túpac Amaru II today. And... well, he has even inspired terrorist movements in Peru, for example... the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement, or the famous Tupamaros of Uruguay, too.
And suddenly we find that Túpac Amaru II, José Gabriel Túpac Amaru, writes a letter to the Bishop of Cuzco... you can find it on the website of the Congress of the Republic...
And it says: "Although today I am noted as a traitor and unfaithful and tyrannical rebel to our monarch Carlos, time will make it known that I am his vassal and that I have not, intentionally, belied my holy and Catholic church one bit. I only intend to remove tyrannies from the kingdom and [ensure] that the holy and Catholic [faith] is observed, living in peace and quiet."
And this text is very revealing. It has not been studied from this perspective... But when we read these texts, we begin to find this other face of Túpac Amaru II.
And the words he uses are very revealing because they coincide with the treaty on tyrannicide by Francisco Suárez. Francisco Suárez was the Jesuit philosopher of the era... And guess who educated Túpac Amaru II?
Jesuits. So it is more than [likely] that he knew Suárez's doctrine. And he is citing the doctrine of tyrannicide here...
Furthermore, it coincides that at this time, the expulsion of the Jesuits from all kingdoms by Carlos III occurs. So, once again, the puzzle begins to fit. Of course. Put yourself in the shoes of Túpac Amaru II. Not to justify him, but to understand him.
José Gabriel Túpac Amaru... managed the supply line from Cuzco to Potosí. They create a border for him in Charcas so that the silver leaves via the Río de la Plata and the port of Buenos Aires. His business falters. Now he has to pay customs, he has to pay alcabala (sales tax). They expel his educators, the Jesuits. So he makes a request to ask for the Marquessate of Oropesa, because with a noble title, you didn't pay taxes... They deny it to him...
So, they deny him the Marquessate of Oropesa, they create a border where he had his supply chain, they expel his educators, and he also had knowledge of the doctrine of Francisco Suárez, which said: "An uprising against a bad government is legitimate."
And we begin to understand the thought of the era. Very far from the Túpac Amaru of today, who was "anti-colonial." Come on, please. "Time will make it known that I am his vassal... of my holy Catholic church." What anti-colonialism are we talking about?
...The most revealing thing I have found is the last letter he signs... This letter he signs as: "Don José Primero, by the grace of God, Inca King of Peru, Santa Fe, Quito, Chile, Buenos Aires, continents of the South Seas..."
And I ask you... the titles that Túpac Amaru reclaims... is it not the geography of the Peru of the Austrias [Habsburgs]?
Notice: Santa Fe, Quito, Buenos Aires, Chile... he is reclaiming the territory of what was known at the time as "Greater Peru."
So, it cannot be ruled out that Túpac Amaru II never rebelled against the Crown, but rather rebelled against the Bourbon Reforms. Which makes a lot of sense if we talk about Cuzco also being a conservative society... and the Bourbon reforms had a modernist and secular character. So, again, the puzzle begins to fit.
Myth #4: The “War of Independence” (It Was a Spanish Civil War)
And this explains... the subsequent processes... I am talking about the process of independence. It was not a war between Spaniards and Americans. That is another thing they also teach us in Peru: "We expelled the Spaniards with independence and ended the yoke of Spanish domination."
In Peru, the War of Independence was not against the Spaniards. It was a war between conservatives and liberals. Which, by the way, that war—and you know this better than I—was already being fought in Spain. Because at the time, Spain was in its own war of independence against Napoleon, against the Napoleonic invasion.
And the Cortes of Cádiz are formed... And I ask you a question: If in Spain they were disavowing the French king, what were we going to do in Peru? You just have to add one plus one.
And that is why the Junta of Quito in 1809 says: "The same right that Seville now has to form, in the interim, a supreme governing junta, is held by any of the kingdoms of America." Logical. Of course. And the same thing happened with the Junta of Buenos Aires, with the Junta of Chile, and also in New Spain...
I'll have you know that the Constitution of Cádiz was sworn in Huancayo. And those of us who are Peruvian know that in Huancayo, this beautiful plaza is called the "Plaza de la Constitución." And not for any Peruvian constitution. For the Constitution of Cádiz.
So, what did you think was going to happen when Fernando VII later does not recognize the Constitution of Cádiz? The problem that existed in Spain was transferred to Peru. And that is what happens...
Abascal [Viceroy of Peru] organizes the Royal Army of Peru and fights the separatist juntas of Quito, Santiago, and Chuquisaca. In fact, the famous Peruvian historian Jorge Basadre says: "When Spain had no king, Peru found a king in Abascal." Abascal brought order...
Pezuela assumes [the viceroyalty] in 1816... and has successive defeats... To the point that San Martín arrives... So in Peru, they say, "Pezuela isn't working." And they stage a coup against Pezuela. Furthermore, Pezuela was a partisan of absolutism, and his officers were liberals. And in 1821, he is overthrown by the liberals.
This is important. Headed by La Serna, the last viceroy of Peru, 1821. Who is in Spain? What circumstance was happening in Spain in 1821?
Ah, the Liberal Triennium. So, did they recognize La Serna? Obviously. "Welcome, brother." Clear, logical. It was during the Liberal Triennium.
The Final Irony: The Royalist vs. Royalist War
So, applause for La Serna. What happens after the expulsion of the French? Fernando VII returns to the throne... the Liberal Triennium begins... And when the Liberal Triennium ends, Fernando VII abolished everything that Rafael de Riego had done in the three previous years.
Question: What happened to La Serna?
Ah. A small detail, right? A small detail. What happened to La Serna's appointment? Was it valid? Was it invalid? A legal vacuum there, right?
That legal vacuum... led to the rebellion of Olañeta. And Olañeta rebels in Upper Peru against La Serna. Because Olañeta was a partisan of Fernando VII, and he saw La Serna as a liberal. So he says, "You are not the viceroy, because your appointment became illicit."
And therefore, the political divisions that existed in the Peninsula arrived in Peru...
But of course, imagine: "I am fighting for the king, and now I have to fight against other royalists." And worse than that, La Serna found himself between two fronts...
La Serna was in Cuzco... Bolívar had retreated... and you have the rebellion of Olañeta in Upper Peru. La Serna was caught between two fronts: between Olañeta's front and Bolívar's front. What do I do?
A controversial decision... but he decided to unify his side... and he sent the royalist army from Cuzco to fight against Olañeta in Upper Peru, leaving only Canterac, who was in Junín. And that is where Bolívar's first victory, at the Battle of Junín, occurs.
It puts things in better perspective, right?
In a cruel irony—because I had told you at the beginning that the Tahuantinsuyo fell due to a civil war—the Viceroyalty of Peru fell due to another civil war. Ironies of life. This is the history that has that dark humor, right?
Obviously, in Peru, Olañeta is not taught. Because obviously, you are not going to stain the heroic figure of Bolívar. But Olañeta contributed more to independence than Bolívar and San Martín, because more armies were lost fighting in Upper Peru than in the battles of Junín and Ayacucho.
Final Lesson: Unity over Division
And this leads us to a great lesson... First, was the War of Independence between Spaniards and Americans? No, it was not... There was a conflict that even came from the Peninsula and was transferred to Peru.
And there comes the second lesson... Divided, we fall. That has been the entire history. When we are divided, we fall. When we are united, we are stronger than ever. No one can stop us. But when we divide and fight among ourselves, the debacle comes. And I think that is the best lesson history leaves us for the present.
Because Peru... was sessioned by that, by an internal division. When we fight among ourselves...
Peru was the last. It was the last. It was the royalist bastion. In fact, armies left Peru from there to fight against San Martín and Bolívar. Loyal to the end.
Peru was so loyal that when La Serna signs the Capitulation of Ayacucho, in Cuzco, they do not recognize it. And they name a new viceroy: Pío Tristán. That's another story they don't tell us either...
...Casimiro Olañeta... "Spain had an army of 20,000 men, of which more than 10,000 disappeared in the battles of... Cotagaita, Lava... and what remained, anarchic and without morale, was beaten at Junín and Ayacucho, ending in Tumusla..."
Notice that more troops were lost, as I told you, fighting in Upper Peru than fighting in Junín and Ayacucho. It makes us question Bolívar's importance in the independence process, doesn't it?
So, when we begin to study history like this, in parallel... how the history of Spain influenced Peru and how the history of Peru also influenced Spain, as one single history... you realize there is no room for Black Legends. You realize there is no room to say, "Ah, yes, the Spaniards came to kill, to plunder, the Spanish yoke of 300 years..." It collapses on its own.
What happened is that we have artificially divided a history that cannot be separated. Because we were a single people, a single empire. And when they separate it, that is when these Black Legends begin, these confrontations that never existed, these dichotomies between conquerors and conquered, or between Spaniards and Incas, when they were more allies than enemies.
So, therein lies the importance of studying our common history and seeing the history of Peru not as part of universal history, but as part of your history as well. Because it is the history of Spain, just as the history of Spain is the history of Peru. And it should be taught that way. And that would also help us to be closer as brothers and avoid these mistakes...
That is the reflection I wanted to leave you with.