the great rebellion in upper peru

8/6/2019 The Great Rebellion in Upper Peru

1/3

The Great Rebellion in Upper Peru (1780-1782) reflected the ever-widening gulf

between the native peoples of Latin America and their perceived enemies, the Spanish,

Creoles, and Mestizos. Many factors contributed to the rebellion, most notably the

hierarchal system by which curacas (intermediaries between the Spanish governor and

the people) were both exploitive of and ill informed about the native peoples. The

mistrust and hatred grew to such an extent that when the rebellion broke out, even those

indigenous peoples who adopted European dress and manners, faced the anti-Spanish

purges that followed.

Nicholas A. Robins in Genocide and Millennialism in Upper Peru asserts that native

peoples of Latin America were, not only victims of genocide, but perpetrators as well.

He uses the events of the Great Rebellion in Upper Peru (1780-1782) to illustrate his

conclusion, namely that Indigenous peoples systematically targeted Spanish, Creoles, and

Mestizos for extermination.

Indigenous peoples suffered under Spanish rule. Robins tells us that the Spanish

government in seeking ever-greater riches legislated Indian males between the ages of

eighteen and fifty into forced labor, often in the gold and silver mines. Labor obligations

increased even as native populations, due to disease, declined. Mita obligations extended

from one year of labor for every five to six years, to one mita every two to three years.

Indian lands, left abandoned because of the Mita, proved vulnerable to thief. The

repartimiento de mercancias law forced Indians to buy European goods (many of which

were useless to them such as books and blue powder for their hair) on consignment. This

in turn trapped them in a never-ending cycle of debt. Many became perpetually beholden

to the merchants and large landowners. Added to these burdens, were the exorbitant


2/3

church tithes, fees for services, and upkeep of the village priests. Indians sought redress

through the court system, and for a time it appeared that the situation would improve;

however, with the advent of Bourbon rule in Spain, conditions further declined. The new

King, in an effort to increase revenues for the crown, enacted legislation that increased

native obligations.

Exploitation and the questioned legitimacy of the new administration gave the Indians

a realization of latent power. A curaca in the Peruvian province of Tinta, Jose Gabriel

Condorcanqui y Thupa Amaro (Tupac Amaru) sought legal redress for his people, but

failed. Disillusioned, Tupac Amaru fomented rebellion and he preached a vision of

America as a land free of those not born there, reports Robins. Though one may argue

that Tupac Amaru never intended the genocide that resulted, in reality, his forces raided

and murdered at will, some even resorting to cannibalism.

Curacas, priests, Spanish, Creoles, Mestizos, and their families died at the hands of

the rebels. Indians were accused of killing as many Spaniards and Mestizos as they

could get their hands on. Using knives, clubs, and stones, the natives decimated

whole villages. Robins affirms genocide by stating, The rebels appeared to enjoy

crafting the demise of the alien system. Victims were stripped, busts of Charles III were

hanged, and Indians drank chichi from silver (church) chalices. Spanish garb made one

white in the eyes of the killers, and many Indians died for wearing Spanish shirts.

Robins records, Sparing the lives of whites was the exception, not the rule and states

that this demonstrated the genocidal nature of the rebellion.

Nicholas Robins work chronicles the development, execution and demise of the Great

Rebellion of Upper Peru and alleges that these events prove the genocidal nature of the


3/3

rebellion itself. Has Robins proven his case? The Geneva Convention says concerning

genocide that it is a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of

essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the

groups themselves. When examing the facts, it becomes clear that Robins fails in

convencing his audience of the validity of his argument. It is true that non-Indians were

targeted for destruction. Tupac Amaru wanted an America free of both the Spanish and

their kin; however, clearly no coordinated plans were carried out to accomplish this. The

rebellion was framented and the attacks on Spanards, Ceoroles, and Mezitos were

sporatic and haphazard. Framentation evenually led to the defeat of the rebellion.

Robins clearly demonostates that no one people has a monoply on cruelty, that injustice

causes people to perpetrate horrible crimes on their oppressions; however, mass murder

of individuals within one same ethnic group does not by itself constitute genocide.

the great rebellion in upper peru

Documents