Coalition of the Confused

Hosted by Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.

  • 1128
    MEMBERS
  • 60982
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Simón Bolívar, democracy, and the bandits of Patía   America - all of it

Started Jul-22 by slackerx; 650 views.
slackerx

From: slackerx

Jul-22

It's hard to find anything about my wife's culture in any English source. Here's a fun little paragraph involving democracy, Simón Bolívar, and my wife's ancestors ("the bandits of Patía"). 

Myths of Harmony: Race and Republicanism during the Age of Revolution, Colombia 1795-1831

by Marixa Lasso (2007)

https://www.scribd.com/document/447078042/tegsnb-pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Myths-Harmony-Republicanism-Revolution-1795-1831/dp/0822959658

(pages 2-4)
 
In such nineteenth-century creole writings, modernity is the commendable aspiration of creole patriots and one of the principles justifying independence from Spain. Yet early narratives of the independence wars also contain some of the first denunciations of modern democratic politics as unsuitable for Spanish American societies. These texts did not condemn democracy per se, but rather its excesses. Simón Bolívar is perhaps the most influential representative of this tradition. His attacks on lawyers, demagogues, and incendiary theoreticians for their failure to grasp that modern politics could not be transferred to Spanish America without sufficient attention to local geography and culture are well known. What often goes unacknowledged is his influence on the development of an intellectual tradition that erased the contribution of the Spanish American popular classes in the history of modern democracy, making modernity seem a mere illusion of the elite. Bolívar sought to prove that fully representative politics did not suit South Americans. He created a dichotomy that distinguished between politically virtuous North Americans and South Americans, whose “character, habits and present enlightenment does not suit perfect representative institutions.” An “entirely popular system,” he insisted, was not appropriate for this region. He also cast local demands for popular and regional representation as the political pipedreams of a handful of enlightened lawyers. In his address to the Constitutional Congress of Angostura, he criticized the current constitution by reminding legislators that “not all eyes are capable of looking at the light of celestial perfection.” Representative democracy might belong in paradise, but not in South America. By making representative politics look like the exclusive aspiration of self-deluded lawyers, he detached the new constitutional governments from the societies that birthed them. This narrative’s legacy erased from historical memory local struggles over the nature of the new political system. Yet if Bolívar lashed out against lawyers’ inability to realize that liberal and perfect institutions did not fit the geography of Colombia, this was because he feared not that the popular classes would remain aloof from modern politics but that they would participate too much. As Germán Carrera Damas has shown, he feared that democracy in Spanish America could lead to the end of elite rule. He blamed lawyers for not understanding that representative institutions among “the Caribes from the Orinoco, the sailors of Maracibo, the bogas [river boatmen] of Magdalena, the bandits of Patia . . . and all the savage hordes of Africa and America” would lead to Colombia’s ruin, perhaps to a second Haiti. In his famous “Jamaica Letter,” he noted that in Lima “the rich would not tolerate democracy, and the slaves and pardos would not tolerate aristocracy.” Years later, he would warn José Antonio Paez against changing Colombia’s republican system, arguing that “the height and brilliance of a throne would be frightful. Equality would be broken and los colores [the colored classes] could see all their rights lost to a new aristocracy.” Future interpretations of Bolívar would tend to forget the strong linkage between pardos and democracy in his writings. Mostly remembered instead is his attack on lawyers’ inability to comprehend local society.

  • Edited July 22, 2021 12:42 am  by  slackerx
Jenifer (Zarknorph)
Host

From: Jenifer (Zarknorph)

Jul-24

This is really interesting, thanks.

slackerx

From: slackerx

Jul-26

Here's another little snippet from another source (in spanish, but I'll post a computer translation). I was thinking about putting it in the War Crimes thread, but I think I'll put it here.

One day, in 1811, Bolívar's forces set fire to the church in Patía. Afropatianos viewed it as positive proof of the impious sentiments of Bolívar's revolutionaries. 

At the time, for a bunch of Black children from Patía to march on a garrison guarding Papayán while playing their drums and for a mulato military leader to string up the garrison of soldados patriotas to trees and to order all of the Black women from Patía to use them as target practice, was considered an atrocity, even by the standards of the times in 1811. 

José María Obando: de soldado realista a cadillo republicano

by Francisco U. Zuluaga 

Amazon.com: Jose´ Mari´a Obando: De soldado realista a caudillo republicano (Biblioteca Banco Popular) (Spanish Edition) (9789589003176): Zuluaga R., Francisco U: Books

(pages 38-40)
 
Sin lugar a dudas, Obando debió recordar los primeros años de esta guerra civil. Debía recordar que después del levantamiento criollo de Quito en 1809 los rebeldes habían sido derrotados en Funes por tropas de Pasto, y que el gobernador Tacón había recibido el apoyo de Pasto y Patía. En 1811 las fuerzas republicanas comandadas por Antonio Baraya atacaron al gobernador Tacón y tomaron a Popayán. Tras esta derrota los patianos apoyaron y protegieron al gobernador mientras éste se retiraba hacia el Perú. Desde entonces los patianos lucharon como guerrillas compuestas de blancos, negros, indios y castas. Estos grupos, antes de la guerra civil, estaban conformados por esclavos fugitivos que habían ganado experiencia en las guerras de partidas cuando luchaban para proteger su libertad en los Palenques. Los indios también habían resistido, un poco menos activamente que los negros, participando en revueltas y motines con los que pretendía impedir el incremento en los tributos y diezmos. Durante el período de 1810-1819 estos individuos se habían unido en apoyo de la causa realista, en la creencia de que la toma de tal partido les permitía fortalecer y mantener su autodeterminación. 
 
En 1811, cuatro meses después de haber tomado a Popayán, las tropas independentístas -- también llamadas patriotas o republicanas -- marcharon sobre Pasto. Las fuerzas invasoras estaban comandadas por los aristócratas don Antonio Baraya y don Joaquín Caicedo. Las guerillas realistas del Patía estaban dirigidas por los mulatos Juan José Caicedo, Simón Muñoz, Joaquín Paz y el alférez don Manuel Antonio Carvajal. A pesar de la corajuda resistencia de las guerrillas, los republicanos avanzaron hasta Pasto y la tomaron a fines de septiembre. Durante esta campaña ambos bandos trataron a sus prisoneros con singular crueldad. En algunas oportunidades las guerrillas capturan soldados aislados durante la noche y les dieron muerta. Los republicanos atacaron las villas y masacraban a cuanto hombre encontraban. Estas acciones eran crueles pero "normales" en aquella guerra. Pero quizá lo peor fue que las tropas republicanos saqueaban las casas, incautaban el ganado y lo más irritante, una campañía comandada por el patricio caleño don Eusebio Borrero incendió la iglesia de la pequeña villa de Patía. Esta fue la prueba positiva -- para los patianos -- de los impíos sentimientos de los revolutionaries. 
 
Obando también debía recordar atrocidades cometidas por las guerrillas realistas y entre éstas el asesinato y robo de cuatro mercaderes capturados el 4 de deciembre de 1811, mientras viajaban de Quito a Popayán. Los guerrilleros tomaron el botín para sostener la causa realista, en una acción típica de bandidismo defensivo, con el fin de obtener abestacamiento que no les era dado obtener de ninguna fuenta e institutionalizada. Una vez con el dinero, el fraile franciscano Fray Andrés Sarmiento, quien actuaba como comandante en jefe, propuso ir a recuperar a Pasto. Sin embargo, los capitanes de guerrilla decidieron atacar primero a Popayán. Camino a esta ciudad, en un lugar llamado Guatito, Fray Andrés y el mulato Juan José reuniron negras, niños y algunaos hombres, los quales, armados con garrotas, algunos mosquetas y tambores, marcharon sobre una guarnición cercana a Popayán. Sus gritos, ruidos y algarabía atrron a los dieciocho fusileros y viente lanceros que componían el detacamiento. Tras el rendimiento de la guarnición, Juan José colgó a los soldados de los árboles y ordenó a las mujeres patianas hacer prácticas de tiro, usando los soldados como blanco. Duespués de esta victoria la turba avanzó contra Popayán sitiándola el 23 de abril de 1812. Los sitiadores ascendían a 3.000 y la ciudad contaban 300 hombres para su defensa. A pesar de la differencia de fuerzas, los patriotas resistieron al ataque y derrotaron a los agresors en la madrugada del 27. 
  • Edited July 26, 2021 4:31 pm  by  slackerx
In reply toRe: msg 3
slackerx

From: slackerx

Jul-26

José María Obando: From Royalist Soldier to Republican Cadillo
 
by Francisco U. Zuluaga 
 
(pages 38-40)
 
Undoubtedly, Obando should have remembered the first years of this civil war. He must have remembered that after the Creole uprising in Quito in 1809 the rebels had been defeated at Funes by troops from Pasto, and that Governor Tacón had received support from Pasto and Patía. In 1811 the republican forces commanded by Antonio Baraya attacked Governor Tacón and took Popayán. After this defeat the patianos supported and protected the governor while he retreated to Peru. Since then the patianos fought as guerrillas composed of whites, blacks, Indians and castes. These groups, before the civil war, were made up of runaway slaves who had gained experience in the partisan wars when they fought to protect their freedom in the Palenques. The Indians had also resisted, somewhat less actively than the blacks, participating in revolts and mutinies to prevent increases in tribute and tithes. During the period 1810-1819 these individuals had rallied in support of the royalist cause, believing that taking such a side allowed them to strengthen and maintain their self-determination. 
 
In 1811, four months after taking Popayán, the independent troops -- also called patriots or republicans -- marched on Pasto. The invading forces were commanded by the aristocrats Don Antonio Baraya and Don Joaquin Caicedo. The royalist guerillas of Patía were led by the mulattoes Juan José Caicedo, Simón Muñoz, Joaquín Paz and the ensign don Manuel Antonio Carvajal. In spite of the brave resistance of the guerrillas, the republicans advanced to Pasto and took it at the end of September. During this campaign both sides treated their prisoners with singular cruelty. On some occasions the guerrillas captured isolated soldiers during the night and killed them. The Republicans attacked the villages and massacred as many men as they could find. These actions were cruel but "normal" in that war. But perhaps the worst was that the Republican troops looted the houses, seized the cattle and most irritatingly, a company commanded by the Cali patrician Don Eusebio Borrero set fire to the church of the small village of Patía. This was proof positive -- for the patianos -- of the unholy feelings of the revolutionaries. 
 
Obando also had to recall atrocities committed by the royalist guerrillas and among these the murder and robbery of four merchants captured on December 4, 1811, while traveling from Quito to Popayán. The guerrillas took the booty to support the royalist cause, in a typical action of defensive banditry, in order to obtain funds that they were not allowed to obtain from any source and institutionalized. Once they had the money, the Franciscan friar Fray Andrés Sarmiento, who acted as commander in chief, proposed to go to recover Pasto. However, the guerrilla captains decided to attack Popayán first. On the way to this city, in a place called Guatito, Fray Andrés and the mulatto Juan José gathered blacks, children and some men, who, armed with clubs, some muskets and drums, marched on a garrison near Popayán. Their shouts, noises, and noise attracted the eighteen riflemen and twenty lancers who made up the detachment. After the garrison surrendered, Juan José hung the soldiers from the trees and ordered the women of the patianos to practice shooting, using the soldiers as targets. After this victory the mob advanced against Popayán besieging it on April 23, 1812. The besiegers amounted to 3,000 and the city had 300 men for its defense. In spite of the difference of forces, the patriots resisted the attack and defeated the aggressors in the early morning of the 27th.
In reply toRe: msg 4
slackerx

From: slackerx

Jul-26

Here's an old Bambuco Patiano titled "Popayán", by Son del Tuno.

Popayán was once one of the wealthiest cities in all of South America. Today, it's the Capital of Cauca, my wife's Department, with beautiful colonial architecture and has the feel of a University town, home of la Universidad del Cauca.

It's a town with lots and lots of history, and it's very, very close to Patía.

  • Edited July 26, 2021 3:35 pm  by  slackerx
Msg 1929.6 and the next 1 deleted

Even back in 1811, around the time of the Haitian revolution, for one of the 3 great mulato military leaders of Patia to string up a bunch of soldados patriotas who had surrendered to a mob of children playing their drums and marching on their position and to string them up to trees and order the Women from Patia to use them for target practice was considered as an atrocity. 

And I don't mean just by today's standards. I mean by the standards of their own time.

Why are Black women so angry?...lol.

TOP