Master lecture delivered by Marcelo Gullo at the University of Seville on October 10, 2018.

We are just a few hours away from celebrating the Hispanic Heritage Day (Dia de La Hispanidad)

How can we not refer, then, in our first words, precisely to the city of Seville – which was informally been the capital of Hispanic America although she, today, ignores it -, in such an important date?

However, on the other hand, logic tells us that it is necessary to begin this conference by explaining the title chosen for it, which, although appearances are deceiving, has an intimate and close relationship with the historical event that we are preparing to commemorate.

From the mere objective observation of the international scene, it follows that the legal equality of the states is a simple fiction, for the simple reason that some states are more powerful than others, which leads to international law being an impossible obstacle to avoid for the weakest and easy to overcome for the strongest.

States exist as active subjects of the international system insofar as they possess power. Military power, economic power, and, above all, cultural power.

Only those states that have power are capable of directing their own destiny. Those states without sufficient military, economic and cultural power to resist the imposition of the will of another state are the recipients of history because they are incapable of directing their own destiny.

By the very nature of the international system, states with power tend to become leading states or to transform themselves into subordinate other states and, by logical consequence, states devoid of the attributes of sufficient power, in military, economic and cultural matters, to maintain their autonomy, they tend to become vassal states or subordinated states, that is, to become informal colonies or semi-colonies, regardless of whether they manage to preserve the formal aspects of sovereignty.

In these states, when they are democratic states, major national decisions are not taken by their formal democratic institutions such as parliaments, but are taken instead with their backs to the majority of their population and, almost always, beyond their borders.

Subordinated democratic states have usually a low-intensity democracy. Logically, there are degrees in the subordination relationship, which is a dynamic relationship and not a static one.

The hypothesis on which International Relations rest, as Raymond Aron maintains, is given by the fact that political units strive to impose their will on each other.^[1]

International Politics always involves a contest of wills: the will to impose or the will not to be imposed the will of the other.

In order to impose their will, the most powerful states tend, in the first instance, to impose their cultural domination. Most of the time, this cultural domination is achieved by powerful states, falsifying the history of the very state they intend to dominate.

The exercise of domination, if the host state does not meet adequate resistance, provokes an ideological-cultural subordination that causes, as a result, that the subordinated state suffers from a kind of ideological immunodeficiency syndrome, due to which, the receiver state even loses the will to defend the culture and takes the history constructed by the other, as its own. This nation, the receiving nation, then falls into a state of inevitable and often irreversible passive subordination.

We can affirm, following the thought of Hans Morgenthau, that the ideal or teleological objective of cultural domination, in Morgenthau’s terms, “cultural imperialism” consists in winning the minds of all the citizens who make the policy of the state in particular, and the culture of the citizens in general, to which you want to subordinate. Defining the concept of “cultural imperialism”, Hans Morgenthau states:

“If we could imagine the culture and, more particularly, the political ideology of a State A with all its concrete imperialist objectives in the process of winning the minds of all the citizens who make the politics of a State B, we would observe that the first of the states would have achieved a more than complete victory and would have established their dominance on a more solid foundation than that of any military conqueror or economic master. State A would not need to threaten military force or use economic pressure to achieve its ends. For this, the subordination of state B to its will would have been produced by the persuasion of a superior culture and by the greater appeal of its political philosophy.”^[2]

However, for some thinkers, such as Juan José Hernández Arregui, the policy of cultural subordination has as its ultimate goal, not only the “conquest of mentalities” but the very destruction of the “national being” of the state subject to the policy of subordination.

And, although generally, Hernández Arregui acknowledges, the issuing state of cultural domination (the “metropolis state”, in Hernández Arregui’s terms), does not achieve the annihilation of the national being of the receiving state, the sender does manage to create in the receiver, “… an organic set of ways of thinking and feeling, an extreme and finely manufactured world-vision, which is transformed into a «normal» attitude of conceptualization of reality [which] is expressed as a pessimistic consideration of reality, as a generalized feeling of worthlessness, lack of security in the face of one’s self, and in the conviction that the subordination of the country and its cultural de-hierarchization is a historical predestination, with its equivalent, the ambiguous feeling of the congenital ineptitude of the people in which one is born and from which, only foreign aid can redeem him.”^[3]

It is necessary to emphasize that, although the exercise of cultural subordination by the sending state does not achieve the total cultural ideological subordination of the receiving state, it can profoundly damage the latter’s power structure, if it generates, through ideological conviction and the falsification of history, an ideological vulnerability that turns out to be – in times of peace – the most dangerous and serious of the possible vulnerabilities for national power because, by conditioning the process of the building of a vision of the world of an important part of the citizenship and of the ruling elite, conditions, therefore, the strategic orientation of economic policy, foreign policy and, what is even more serious, corrodes the self-esteem of the population, weakening national morale and identity, indispensable ingredients – as Morgenthau showed – of the national power to carry out a policy aimed at achieving the objectives of the national interest.

It is necessary to affirm, at this point in our presentation, that the “Black Legend” of the Spanish conquest of America constituted the main ingredient of Anglo-Saxon cultural imperialism to defeat Spain and dominate Hispanic America.

“The contempt for Spain dates back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as part of the national policy of England”, affirms the Marxist philosopher, Hernández Arregui, whom no one in his right mind could accuse of being a “Falangist”.

“It is a loss of prestige of foreign origin – argues Arregui- that begins with the translation into English, very widespread in Europe at the time, of the book by Bartolomé de las Casas «Tears of the Indians: true and historical account of the cruel massacres and murders committed on twenty million innocent people by the Spanish». The title says it all. A libel.“^[4]

Reflecting on the discovery and conquest of America, the great Argentine historian Jorge Abelardo Ramos, enrolled from a very young age in the ranks of Trotskyist-inspired socialism, affirms that, (when) “… on October 12, 1492, the Ligurian Christopher Columbus discovered to Europe the existence of an Orbis Novo … was not only the eclipse of the Ptolemaic tradition and the end of medieval geography. There was something else. That day Hispanic America was born and with it, a great new people would be born, founded on the fusion of ancient cultures.”^[5]

For Jorge Abelardo Ramos himself, October 12 is the birthday of Latin America and this is an irreversible fact – according to Ramos – regardless of whether that date is named (as) “… discovery of America, or Double Discovery o Encounter of two Worlds, or genocide, according to taste, and above all, according to interests, not always clear …”^[6]

Pristine, are the words of Abelardo Ramos that indicate the existence of “not always clear” interests, when reflecting on the discovery of America.

However, even that great Argentine historian falls into a conceptual error that is precisely the origin of our passive cultural subordination both on one side and the other of the Atlantic Ocean.

We are not Latin Americans, we are Hispanic Americans. And we are not the former because, – as the great Marxist thinker Juan José Hernández Arregui explains, who, as we have already said, it is impossible to classify as a Franco supporter -, because the concept of Latin America is a false concept, a term created in France and later used by the United States that “disguises one of the many forms of mental colonization”^[7], so alive today in Hispanic America, as in Spain.

Passively ideologically subordinated, due to the weight of the “Black Legend” on one side and the other of the Atlantic, we discard the term Hispanic America, a concept that, vindicated at the beginning of the 20th century, by the great Uruguayan writer José Enrique Rodo, does not exclude in his opinion, Brazil but includes it, since both present-day Spain and Portugal were part of Roman Hispania. Because Portugal, we add, was born from the Kingdom of León, and its entire existence from its birth to the death of the beloved King Sebastián, – dated in 1578, in the torrid lands of Morocco bathed by the Alcazalquivir river when it tried to reconquer North Africa for the Faith of Christ -, revolved around the unity-independence dialectic, which led the two crowns, during all that time, to seek reunification, through the marriage of their children.

Passively subordinated, ideologically and culturally, through the falsification of the history of the conquest, Hispanic America forgot its progenitor but, even worse, Spain also passively subordinated, ideologically and culturally, by the history that its enemies re-wrote, forgot its “metaphysical motherhood”. Black Legend of the conquest of America that was pulverized by serious historical analysis, as recognized by the writer and standard-bearer of liberal thought, Mario Vargas Llosa, of whom no one could suspect Franco supporting sympathies or keeper of old outdated imperial dreams.

A “Black Legend” that, as Vargas Llosa acknowledges, is a “fictitious intellectual construct” that, for “centuries ago profoundly distorted the history of Spain and ridiculed its people”. But a Black Legend that, as the great Peruvian writer justly acknowledges, is “still very much alive because the Spaniards themselves have neither wanted nor known how to combat it”.^[8]

That is why, following Hernández Arregui, we affirm that: “The legend against Spain erected by the Anglo-Saxons, must be disarmed by the Hispanic Americans, more than by the Spanish … Spain will have to reconquer itself from America.”^[9]

And we undertake this task today, in this conference.

According to Elvira Roca Barea – affirms Vargas Llosa -, “the anti-Spanish black legend was a propaganda operation mounted and fueled over time by Protestantism – especially in its Anglican and Calvinist branches – against the Spanish empire and the Catholic religion to affirm their own nationalism, demonizing them to terrifying extremes and even depriving them of humanity. Having, of this, abundant examples of all kinds: theological treatises, history books, novels, documentary and fiction films, comics, puns, and even after-dinner jokes.”^[10]

It is worth remembering here, some of the voices that in Spanish America dared to contradict that legend.

In my small homeland, the Argentine Republic, all our great popular leaders, Artigas, Quiroga, Rosas, Yrigoyen, and Perón faced the black legend because they sensed, in this false interpretation of the history of the Spanish conquest of America, the hidden hand of the “perfidious Albion”.

Allow me to pinpoint and remember, in times when in my country the figure of Evita is used to justify a weak “indigenous progressivism”, a statement that she repeated, with a passion that sprang from her heart and burned her soul, one and a thousand times, anticipating with feminine intuition, what scientifically verifies, in our days, the historian María Elvira Roca Barea, “The black legend – Eva Perón affirms – with which the Reformation managed to denigrate the largest and noblest enterprise that the centuries know, as were also the discovery and the conquest, only had validity in the market of the fools or those with vetted interests.”^[11]

Also, in honor of the historical truth, regarding the conquest of America, allow me to quote here the thought of Juan Domingo Perón who, it should be remembered, died wrapped in the love of his people and surrounded by the hatred of the oligarchy and contempt of some youth groups that, opting for the path of death and violence, led to the death of all politics.

On October 12, 1947, Perón, referring to the Spanish conquest of America, stated:

“Your enterprise had the fate of a real mission. This enterprise did not come to the Indies eager for gain and willing to turn her back and leave once the fruit was squeezed and tasted. It came to be a fulfilled and beautiful reality, the posthumous mandate of Queen Isabel of Castilla to «attract the peoples of the Indies and convert them to the service of God». For this it brought the good news of the Revealed Truth, expressed in the most beautiful language on earth. It came so that these peoples could organize themselves under the rule of law and live peacefully. They did not aspire to destroy the Indian but to win him to the faith and dignify him as a human being … as it could not have been otherwise, this enterprise was discredited by his enemies, and his epic achievement was the object of derision, the source of intrigue and the target of slander, judging by merchants standards, what had been a company of heroes. All the weapons were tested: they resorted to lies, what had been done was misrepresented, a legend plagued with lies was woven around them and spread it to the four winds.
And all, with a perverse purpose … thus fostering, in us, a spiritual inferiority conducive to their imperialist aims, whose salaried employees and empowered spokesmen repeated, on request, the ominous refrain whose remunerated dissemination was borne by the so-called national information systems. … Spain, the new Prometheus, was thus tied for centuries to the rock of History.”^[12]

In case there were any doubts, the religious proselytizing motivation for the conquest of America, of which Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón speaks to us, was clearly identified, also by two great authorities of Spanish-American Marxism such as they were, the Peruvian José Carlos Mariátegui and the Argentine Rodolfo Puiggrós.

It is, in this sense, that José Carlos Mariátegui affirms:

“I have already said that the Conquest was the last crusade and that with the conquerors the greatness of Spain began. Its character as a crusade defines the Conquest as an essentially military and religious enterprise. It was carried out, in shared command, by soldiers and missionaries … The execution of Atahualpa, although, obeying only the rudimentary political Machiavellianism of Pizarro, was clothed with religious reasons … After the tragedy of Cajamarca, the missionary continued to zealously dictate his law to the Conquest. The spiritual power inspired and controlled the temporal power … the crusader, the knight, personified an epoch that was ending, the medieval catholic.”^[13]

In the same sense, Rodolfo Puiggrós maintains that:

“The conquest of America, prolonged the crusades to a stage of magnitude and characteristics unknown to the European soldier … None was qualified, like the Spanish, for such a gigantic task. Almost three centuries before (1212), in the great battle of Las Navas de Tolosa that disposed of the Muslim army, the fifty thousand French, Provençal, Breton, Italian, German, and English knights and soldiers defected and the Iberians alone (soli hispani), they put up the fight and got the victory. Since then, they fought against Islam without foreign aid… If the New World did not appear in their path, it is certain that the Castilians would have persecuted the subjects of Islam, beyond the Strait of Gibraltar. The ambitious dream of exterminating them and rebuilding along the southern Mediterranean coast, the domains of the first Christians was not abandoned, while America did not absorb the energies of Spain until it was exhausted … Spain – concludes Puiggrós -, turned into the New World its Christian missionary sense, formed in the anti-Islamic war… injected into the societies he created on the other side of the ocean, the religious transcendentalism that, in the aftermath of feudalism, survived the great social changes underway in the Old World.”^[14]

“It Contributed to the extension and duration of the black legend – affirms Vargas Llosa – the indifference with which the Spanish empire, first, and then its intellectuals, writers and artists, instead of defending themselves, in many cases made the black legend their own, endorsing its excesses and fabrications as part of a fierce self-criticism that made Spain an intolerant, macho, lascivious country and at odds with the scientific spirit and freedom.”^[15]

In short, the “Black Legend” through which the passive cultural subordination of Spain was produced, which lasts to this day and which leads Spain to not recognize her children and to prefer blonde Teutons or Muslim Arabs on her soil, was the greatest work of British political marketing.
Father De las Casas’s book was the first case in which the Intelligence organs of a political unit managed to turn a literary or historical work into a worldwide success.

In the 15th century, the Netherlands and England, which were engaged in a war to the death with Spain, decided to use, as an instrument of anti-Spanish propaganda, the book «Brief account of the destruction of the Indies» by the Spanish priest Bartolomé de las Casas and managed to make it, in a short time, a worldwide success. The book «Brief account of the destruction of the Indies» was written by Fray Bartolomé, in Spain, around 1541 and published in Seville in 1552.

From 1579 to 1648 (that is, from the rebellion of the Netherlands to the Peace of Westphalia), 33 editions of the illustrated work of Bartolomé de las Casas were printed in Holland – the mortal enemy of Spain -, almost all of them, by the Dutch engraver and publisher Teodoro de Bry, with plates that expressed in images the narration that the Dominican made of the supposed atrocities carried out by the Spaniards in America.

In this regard, the Marxist historian Jorge Abelardo Ramos states:

“In his «Brief account of the destruction of the Indies», and later in his «General History of the Indies», Father Las Casas offered a version, exaggerated by his passion and frequently plagued with inaccuracies dictated by the worst controversial resources, of Spanish cruelty in the Conquest. The critical refutal of his Brevísima account is simple, and Hispanophiles have already done it. It is important to reiterate here that Spain’s European rivals, famous genociders and vampires from entire peoples, such as the English and the Dutch, threw themselves on Las Casas’s work like flies on honey. In the presses of Germany, Holland, and Great Britain, translations quickly spread. Apparently, Spain in its conquests used bloody methods. His rivals, on the other hand, were pious philanthropists.”^[16]

It is necessary to clarify that, in Spanish America, “the denial of Spain, on the part of the oligarchy, at its core, is nothing more than the dying cultural residue of its material servitude to the British Empire. The peoples,  -Hernández Arregui affirms –, remained Hispanic, linked to the past, to the previous culture. Which proves the power of that Spanish culture that the oligarchy repudiated to live from then on as servants.”^[17]

It is for the aforementioned reasons that, following the great Arequipa Jesuit Guzmán y Vizcardo, who was the first to raise the need for the independence of the mother country, I would like to remind you that we are American Spaniards and you are peninsular Spaniards.

For this reason, Spain was and continues to be our Motherland.

We did not want to become independent from Spain but from Bourbon imperialism, from a Royal Crown that had taken over the throne of Spain and that, paradoxically, had always hated eternal Spain and everything that Spain had represented.

Royal Crown, which, having become the owner of the throne of Isabel the Catholic Queen, the greatest woman in the history of Spain, proceeded to expel the Society of Jesus from the lands of the Indies, thus leaving us in the most complete geopolitical, military and cultural helplessness.^[18]

The expulsion of the Jesuits broke the evangelization process, for years left the classrooms of the Universities and Colleges empty of great professors and teachers and allowed the “bandeirantes” (mercenaries) to launch themselves on the Jesuit missions like birds of prey, burning towns and churches, in order to occupy our lands and capture the best men of the Guaraní people, to take them as slaves to the mines of San Pablo and Mina Gerais.

A Royal Crown that, having become the owner of the throne of the great Felipe II, established, in 1778, the Free Trade Regulation that truncated our process of “proto-industrialization” and that, in this way, led to misery to a gigantic mass of Hispanic Americans who from Bogotá to Córdoba lived on the artisan production of ponchos, boots, jackets and all the clothes necessary for a dignified life because Hispanic America was self-sufficient in everything it needed.

It should be remembered that after the terrible defeat of the Spanish fleet in the English Channel, America was forced, then, to produce the manufactures that Spain could not send in or were too expensive to send or were shipped very sporadically. “America had to be self-sufficient. And this meant an enormous good to it: it was populated with industries to supply almost its entire domestic market. Malaspina, a 17th century writer, tells us that «the manufacturing movement in Mexico and Peru were remarkable».” He speaks of 150 obrajes (factories) in Peru, which at 20 looms each, gave a total of 3000 looms. And Cochabamba, according to Haenke, consumed from 30 to 40 thousand arrobas (1 arroba = 14.6kgs) of cotton, in its manufactures.”^[19]

The manufacturing stage had begun in Spanish America.

With the Free Trade Regulations of 1778, the majority of the population began to become impoverished.

The great socialist historian Vivian Trías, tells us about it,

“The flood of imports that flowed inland posed terrible competition to vernacular manufacturing and crafts. The weaving, saddlery, etc., of the Mediterranean provinces, were not in a position to compete with articles made in the mechanized manufacturing centers of Manchester or Glasgow (then) the interior stagnated and then began to languish…”^[20]

However, it is necessary to clarify that, despite the misery and helplessness that the Borbons brought to Hispanic America, the Andean peoples remained faithful to the monarchy, because they believed that in this way, they were faithful to Spain.

Only in the lands of the Plata, where the outrage over the damage caused by the Borbons was strongest and where the English intrigue had managed to penetrate more deeply, the peoples decided to launch the struggle for independence. As the popular sectors of the River Plate conceived it, it did not imply, in any way, to deny Hispanicity – that is, of the culture, language, and religion brought by Castile to America – but rather to deny Borbon imperialism, the House of Borbons that since his arrival to the throne of Spain, he had left the lands of Plata in absolute economic, military and cultural helplessness. The popular sectors of the Río de la Plata did not forgive the Borbons the Free Trade Regulations, the handover of the province of Río Grande del Sur to the Portuguese, and the expulsion of the Jesuits.

Only in the Plata Valley was independence popular. In other parts of Hispanic America such as Peru or Venezuela, the popular sectors were in favor of maintaining the bond of unity with Spain.

Hernández Arregui dared to affirm, against the official history of all the Spanish-American republics, that “the emancipation of Spain was not at the time desired by the American peoples … The peoples did not yearn for the separation from Spain … It is not said – maintains Hernández Arregui – that in 1810 the Venezuelan masses followed the Spanish frigate captain Monteverde, winner of Miranda. And not Bolívar … Those masses, Monteverde already discredited, in 1813, did not accompany Bolívar but Boves, the Spanish leader who effectively led the lower classes against the Spanish and Creole aristocracy. Boves led the oppressed masses who, in 1814, bloodily confronted Bolívar.”^[21]

On the other hand, it is impossible to ignore the indisputable and undisputed fact that the plebes of Peru were the spine bone of the royalist army settled in the Andes and that undoubtedly made up the bulk of its ranks. “The army consisted of 23,000 enlisted men and 8000 militiamen. In that powerful army (at that time) there were only 1500 European Spaniards. All the rest were made up of Peruvians.”^[22]

Similarly, it is impossible to ignore that, from Lima, Arequipa, Cuzco, and other Peruvian provinces, came the Creole-indigenous troops that left defeated, in Huaqui, the army sent from Buenos Aires.

When San Martín landed on the coasts of Peru, the Indians, in general, did not adhere, in the early days, to the revolutionary forces and, on the contrary, remained faithful to the viceroy. The Indians fought like soldiers under the Hispanic flag. When Viceroy La Serna left Lima and settled in Cuzco, he formed an army, almost totally made up of Indians who were loyal to the Spanish monarchy and opposed to independence, and, with this Indian army, he continued the fight to the end in 1824.

Sharply, Abelardo Ramos, analyzing the process that took place after 1810, observed that:

“Spanish officers were Indians like Santa Cruz, who fought against the Americans for several years before joining the fight for independence.” And that, curiously, “in the Venezuelan plains, or in Colombia, the Spanish had the support of the most humble, called castes, men of color, and who were first-rate horsemen and fighters.”^[23]

On the other hand, many native peoples, such as the Araucanians, remained faithful, until the end, to the Spanish monarchy and fought fiercely against the independence armies.

As the Chilean historian, Eduardo Cavieres Figueroa, points out, between 1810 and 1818, the period in which the Chilean independence process was conceived, the war between patriotic and royalist troops was fought in central Chile, between the La Serena region in the north and the Concepción region to the south, being the Araucanians therefore, outside this process.

However, this situation would change abruptly due to the displacement of the war scene towards the south. In this new stage of the war, which lasted until 1828, the Spanish settled in Araucanía, finding in the Mapuche people a powerful and faithful ally. The Chilean government’s policy towards the indigenous population was ambiguous, and despite the fact that they sought their friendship out of necessity, the Mapuches massively supported and until the last moment the royalist cause in their war to the death against the independence process.^[24]

Just by way of example, let us show how strong was the loyalty of the majority of the indigenous population to the Spanish Crown and their rejection of independence by telling how the general of the Royal Army of Peru, Don Antonio Huachaca – a Huachaca Indian – continued to fight against the Republic, along with the Huachaca people, until 1839. With an army that numbered four thousand men armed only with lances and slings, General Huachaca carried out, for almost two decades, a guerrilla war that was known as the castles of Iquicha war, because the high Andean peaks served as fortresses for the monarchical resistance of the indigenous peasantry. In that war, the indigenous masses were accompanied by the lower Catholic clergy who were in charge of the logistics of the Indian army. For this action, the humble priests of Ayacucho were excommunicated by the high clergy residing in Lima who were subordinate to the authorities of the Republic.

Three years after the battle of Ayacucho, the Huachaca Indian, in a letter addressed to the prefect, rebuked the forces of the Republic, saying: “You are rather the usurpers of religion, the Crown and the homeland. What has been achieved by you during these three years of your power? The tyranny, the grief, and the ruin of a kingdom that was so generous. What inhabitant, rich or poor, does not complain today?
Who is responsible for the crimes? We do not support such a tyranny.“^[25]

The war against the Republic and independence only ended on November 15, 1839 when the indigenous forces signed the Yanallay Treaty. Thus, the Iquicha war ended with a peace treaty and not with an unconditional surrender, as the republican forces had always sought.

For having forgotten its history, Spain today naively opens its doors to the descendants of the ancient Muslim invader. For not remembering his history, he prefers Teutonic blondes over his Hispanic American children. By making the Black Legend its own, Spain forgot that no Hispanic American, brown, Indian, or Creole was a foreigner in the lands of Isabel and Fernando. That is why, the Motherland, believing to be free, is subordinate, subordinate to that Black Legend, the first link in its passive subordination. From that remote link, all the other links that bring us to the present will be concatenated.

“The legend against Spain erected by the Anglo-Saxons, must be disarmed by the Hispano-Americans, more than by the Spaniards”, Hernández Arregui postulated as a political principle. “Spain will have to reconquer itself from America”, the great Unamuno stated as a categorical imperative.

Well, that reconquest has started tonight here in Seville.

---

^[1] Aron, R., Paix et guerre entre les nations (avec une presentation inédite de l’auteur), París, Ed. Calmann-Lévy, 1984.
^[2] Morgenthau, H., Política entre las naciones. La lucha por el poder y la paz, Buenos Aires, Grupo Editor Latinoamericano, 1986, p. 86.
^[3] Hernández Arregui, J.J., Nacionalismo y liberación, Buenos Aires, Ed. Peña Lillo, 2004, p. 140
^[4] Hernández Arregui, J.J., ¿Qué es el ser nacional?, Buenos Aires, Ed. Peña Lillo, 2005, p. 24.
^[5][6] Ramos, J.A., Historia de la Nación Latinoamericana, Buenos Aires, Ed. Dirección de publicaciones del Senado de la Nación, 2006, p. 34.
^[6]. Ibíd., p. 34.
^[7] Hernández Arregui, J.J., op. cit. p. 7.
^[8] Vargas Llosa, Mario, Leyendas negras que horadan el poder del enemigo.
^[9] Hernández Arregui, J.J., op. cit. p. 29.
^[10] Vargas Llosa, Mario, Leyendas negras que horadan el poder del enemigo.
^[11] Yurman, P., Instantes decisivos de la Historia argentina, Buenos Aires, Ed. Imago Mundi, 2018, p.XI.
^[12] Perón, J.D., La comunidad organizada y otros discursos académicos, Buenos Aires, Ed. Machaca Guemes, 1973, p. 138.
^[13] Mariategui, J.C., 7 Ensayos de interpretación de la realidad peruana, Lima, Ed. Amauta, 1994, Págs. 169 y 170.
^[14] Puiggros, R., La España que conquistó el Nuevo Mundo, Buenos Aires, Ed. Altamira, 2005, p. 17.
^[15] Vargas Llosa, Mario, Leyendas negras que horadan el poder del enemigo.
^[16] Ramos, J.A., op.cit., p. 83.
^[17] Hernández Arregui, J.J., op. cit. p. 25.
^[18] On 27 February 1767, King Carlos III of Spain issued a pragmatic sanction expelling the Society of Jesus from all the dominions of the Spanish monarchy. In a single night, from 2 to 3 April 1767, all the houses, residences, universities, churches and colleges belonging to the Jesuits in Spain and America were brutally invaded by the troops of King Carlos III. Two important advisors to the monarch, linked through Freemasonry to British diplomacy, the Count of Aranda and the future Count of Floridablanca, were mainly responsible for the operation. Some 6,000 Jesuits were violently arrested, crammed into the holds of Spanish warships, and transported to the Papal States, where they were unceremoniously dumped on the beach. The whole Spanish operation, which had taken fourteen months of preparation, was one of the most important triumphs of British secret espionage.
^[19] Rosa, J.M., Defensa y pérdida de nuestra independencia económica, Ed. Huemul, p. 21.
^[20] Trias V., Juan Manuel de Rosas, Montevideo, Ed. De la Banda Oriental, 1970, p. 14.
^[21] Hernández Arregui, J.J., op.cit., págs. 86 a 89.
^[22] Albornoz, S., El Perú más Allá de sus Fronteras, Buenos Aires, Ed. Del Autor, p. 28
^[23] Ramos, J.A., op. cit. p.127.
^[24] Cavieres Figueroa, E., Revista Historia Contemporánea Nª 27, Santiago, 2009, págs. 75-98.
^[25] Altuve Febres Lores, F., Los reinos del Perú. Apuntes sobre la monarquía peruana, Lima, Ed. Febres y Dupuy, 1996, p. 214.