In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

Reviewed by:
  • Spaniards in the Colonial Empire: Creoles vs. Peninsulars? by Mark A. Burkholder
  • Christoph Rosenmüller
Spaniards in the Colonial Empire: Creoles vs. Peninsulars? By Mark A. Burkholder. West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013. Pp. xv, 198 $19.95 paper.

Burkholder has in the course of his distinguished career published a number of well-regarded scholarly contributions. In his new book he draws on his expertise in the Atlantic World to dissect the conflict and cooperation between creoles and Spaniards in a precise yet engaging manner. The text is geared mainly toward an undergraduate audience, but specialists too will find here novel ideas, refreshing cultural vignettes, and [End Page 335] even quick-reference sources. The book covers three centuries and includes some treatment of the Portuguese empire. With its broad sweep it can well stand alone as an introductory text to colonial Latin America.

According to Burkholder, the native daughters and sons, that is the creoles living in the provinces of their birth, set themselves apart from other creoles. Native sons and daughters claimed privileged access to the rewards of their provinces, mostly offices, in part because of their forebears’ achievements in the conquest. The laws in several instances, such as the Ordinance of Patronage, acknowledged such claims. Nonetheless, immigrant Spaniards, in the Americas called gachupines or chapetones, were often given preference in order to restrict local creoles’ influence on politics. This conflict, argues Burkholder, dates back at least to Hernán Cortés’ conquistadores, who resented the late arrivals or advenedizos led by the ill-fated Pánfilo de Narváez.

Only in 1602 did Philip III appoint Alonso Bravo as the first native son to hold an audiencia post. Bravo had, however, received most of his education in Spain after his parents returned there from the Americas. After Bravo’s ascent, it took another 35 years for the next native son to be promoted to a high court. According to Burkholder, tensions between creoles and peninsulars also flared over access to leading posts in the treasury, the district administration, and the Church. As the creole population grew, so did its hold on offices. The heyday lasted from about the 1630s to the 1750s. Then, the determination of the crown to supplant native sons in office with Spaniards hardened: “No wonder that native sons believed the crown discriminated against them. It did” (p. 128).

The naturalist Count Buffon stoked the fire by maintaining that the New World had emerged later from the seas than the old and had therefore not air-dried properly. The humid climate weakened animals and humans: “The savage is feeble and small in his organs of generation,” concluded the count (p. 115). Creoles such as Francisco Clavijero and even peninsulars, among them Benito Feijóo, rejected these attacks. In the 1790s the crown again appointed more creoles, in an effort to garner support in revolutionary times. From Burkholder’s perspective, the underlying conflict grew into the struggle over representation in the Cortes of Cádiz and finally into independence.

Burkholder covers much ground beyond politics by introducing social and cultural perspectives. As he is aware, creole elites considered themselves Spanish and harbored little hostility against the peninsular Spaniards as a whole, or the crown. Native daughters often married immigrants who became quickly rooted (radicado) in society, giving locals significant influence on the administration. In addition, a gendered analysis adds nuance: The great convents sheltered more than 1,000 residents in Lima or Mexico City. Of these, 200 to 300 were nuns living a “private life” sustained by a multitude of servants. The local society became deeply enmeshed with the convents and their abbesses, who wielded significant social influence and controlled sizeable loan funds. Quarrels erupted here too, but the creole-Spaniard split was less marked than among the male orders. [End Page 336]

Historians have engaged Burkholder’s main argument. Michel Bertrand downplays the watershed character of the 1750s in terms of creole/peninsular conflict, because arriving officeholders continued to be quickly absorbed into local society. Horst Pietschmann maintains that during roughly the same period feuding visions of a “federative” empire versus a nascent nation state superseded the creole-Spanish controversy. Nonetheless, Burkholder...

pdf

Share