Reading for Friday, January 16

This is a link to the essay by Marshall Eakin that we will be discussing on Friday. It speaks directly to a question that we will be coming back to all semester, which is whether or not "Latin America" exists, and if it does, what its parameters are. Pay attention to his conclusion, as well as what he says about other historians and their opinions, common assumptions, and whether or not a "common history" exists. What sorts of factors does he point to in order to make his point? What do you think? As a corollary, I would also like us to discuss whether or not the Caribbean should be included in our definition of "Latin America."

http://sitemason.vanderbilt.edu/files/b/bqYe9W/Eakin.pdf

We will also be reading pgs. 29-57 in Chasteen's survey for Friday. This is a very brief overview of the conquest period. Since our course is about the modern period, this will not be a crucial theme, but it is still important in the sense that it lays a foundation for certain structural issues that will reappear throughout the course. When you read, consider the following questions: 

1) When and how was Brazil discovered, and what did Portugal think of it at first? When did their attitude change, and why?

2) Describe the different "types" of indigenous societies that the Iberians encountered, regarding levels of settlement, agricultural patterns, and so on. How did the size of the group and its geographical location impact "conquest?" What groups survived the conquest period and why?

3) How were men like Cortes and Pizarro able to "conquer" such large kingdoms with so few men?

4) What was the demographic composition of the early Spanish and Portuguese settlements? How does this compare to what you know about early British settlements in the US?