The Epic of Latin America

I'm about 2/3 of the way through this book (for the second time; I originally read it 6-7 years ago before starting this blog) by John A. Crow, a comprehensive telling of the history of Central and South America, from the days of the Maya, Inca and Aztec to the 20th century.

My initial impulse for reading the book was the realization of just how little I know (if anything at all) of Latin American history.  As a history lover, it was nearly a completely blank slate for me.  They just don't teach this stuff in North American schools.

My re-reading of the book was partly for the same reason, and partly because my overall study of history, currently focused on 16-17th century Europe, strongly overlaps with the post-conquest era of Latin American history.  Indeed, more than half of the 900+ pages takes place post-Columbus, and is filled with cross-Atlantic diplomacy, commerce and history.

Because I've been reading so much European history, this re-reading has pointed out to me exactly how intertwined are the stories of Europe and Latin America.  Everyone knows how Europe conquered and dominated Latin America for some three centuries, but far fewer understand how Europe's (and most particularly, Spain's) ineptitude lost it.  Indeed, this history emphasizes how Spain's conservatism and backwardness prevented it from adapting and modernizing.  Spain lost control of the New World by refusing to let go of the Old World.

It's a fascinating story, and I'm certainly glad to be reading it again.  In fact, I'm somewhat horrified of how little I remember from the first reading.

Note to self: Keep re-reading the most important books.

Addendum on February 24, 2013:  Just a few final notes as I turn the last few pages of this book:

• One of the central questions in my mind is why do the Latin American countries struggle to catch up to the rest of the world in terms of development?  There are many answers.  I suppose the most obvious reason is that the region was almost completely isolated from the rest of the world until just 500 years ago, and that a vacuum effect is forcing an unnaturally rapid development.  Millennia worth of development have been compressed into centuries, with the resulting pain and confusion.
• Similarly, why did the United States prosper following its own revolution, while Latin America became entangled in a cycle of never ending revolutions?  This is a doubly interesting question when you consider that many of the constitutions adopted during the last few centuries across Latin America were directly modeled on the U.S. Constitution.  The answer lies in the fact that the young U.S. had a much more educated citizenry.  They knew when the wool was being pulled over their eyes, and when it wasn't.  They wouldn't believe just any strong-man that jumped on a soap box and told them what they wanted to hear.  Education of the citizenry is the primary difference between the two examples.
• The young citizenry of the U.S. also migrated from nations where the rule of law existed as a norm, where as no such examples existed in the minds of the early Latin American revolutionary states.  The new countries south of the border endured the rule of man, versus the rule of law.  The cult of personality might keep things under control during the life of the strong man, but chaos ensued as soon as he died or was toppled.  Revolutions take the place of elections.  I suppose a similar situation existed during the later centuries of the Roman Empire, where law ceased to apply as much as the personality of one strong-man emperor.
• I want to explore a few interesting personalities from Latin American culture, notably Pedro II of Brazil who ruled that country well for 58 years.  Also, Simon Bolivar, the great Venezuelan "liberator" of much of northern South America, and Jose de San Martin, the Argentine "Protector" so vital to the liberation of much of South America (Argentina, Chile, Peru, Ecuador) from Spanish rule.