Регулярное выражение. Извлечь необходимый текст из кода

<u who="nf0052"> first of all i want to check does everybody have this is really boring does everybody have the new seminar sheet <pause dur="0.2"/> for next term <pause dur="0.4"/> if there's anybody who doesn't <pause dur="0.3"/> have the new and slightly augmented seminar sheet <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.5"/> the first seminar of next term that's in week one <pause dur="0.3"/> take one <pause dur="0.2"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> if you have one <pause dur="0.2"/> don't take another one because we don't have five-hundred of them okay <pause dur="1.2"/> the other thing that goes with that is we're <pause dur="0.2"/> kindly handing out to you the <pause dur="0.7"/> one of the key texts for <pause dur="0.3"/> that seminar again does anybody not have it <pause dur="1.7"/> if you if you don't have one again <pause dur="0.2"/> take it <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> and if you do have one then don't take one okay <pause dur="1.0"/> there's that <pause dur="0.5"/> the next thing i want to hand out to you which also doesn't relate to the lecture itself <pause dur="0.7"/> is a revised list of essay topics that i gather there's been some </u><gap reason="break in recording" extent="uncertain"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> justified discontent with the <pause dur="0.3"/> division <pause dur="0.2"/> of <trunc>sec</trunc> between sections one two and three on the essays <pause dur="0.3"/> that some i gather from <gap reason="name" extent="2 words"/> that some of you were unhappy about <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> # the way which the divisions into the three 
sections was going to be <pause dur="0.2"/> limiting your choice on writing essays <pause dur="0.6"/> so what we've done is we've redrawn the boundary <pause dur="1.7"/> between the three different sections <pause dur="0.8"/> and slightly changed the essay topics <pause dur="0.2"/> for <pause dur="0.2"/> the next essay and for the third essay so take one of these <pause dur="0.6"/> and pass them on <pause dur="0.5"/> if for some reason <pause dur="0.2"/> i don't think we've actually eliminated any essays i think we've just added new topics and moved them around <pause dur="0.4"/> but if somehow <event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> these changes are going to prevent you from writing an essay that you had already set your heart on then just tell me and you can do it okay <pause dur="0.3"/> this is meant to be expanding rather than limiting choice <pause dur="0.5"/> okay <pause dur="0.9"/> and the third thing <pause dur="0.4"/> no the fourth thing what are we up to <pause dur="1.0"/> fourth <pause dur="0.3"/> i don't know how many things <pause dur="0.4"/> the next thing that i want to hand out to you actually does relate <pause dur="0.3"/> to the lecture <pause dur="0.4"/> this is <pause dur="0.5"/> the one thing that does <pause dur="0.5"/> this is <pause dur="0.5"/> a two-sided handout <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> that duplicates material that i'm going to show you on the overhead <pause dur="1.0"/> so take one of those <pause dur="0.3"/> you don't need it yet <pause dur="0.3"/> you'll know 
when you need it i'll tell you when you need it <pause dur="0.7"/> okay <pause dur="0.7"/> so are those all moving through the class <pause dur="0.7"/> are you okay <pause dur="0.6"/> okay <pause dur="1.3"/> what i would like to do now is actually start <pause dur="0.9"/> the lecture i'd like to indeed <pause dur="0.4"/> begin talking about oh no God what is this thing doing it says <pause dur="2.6"/><event desc="turns off television" iterated="n"/> mm <pause dur="0.3"/> pull the plug on the video first <pause dur="0.5"/> what i would like to do is i would like to start <pause dur="0.8"/> today's lecture <pause dur="0.5"/> this is the last lecture of <pause dur="0.6"/> the section on independence <pause dur="0.6"/> but it's also the beginning of <pause dur="0.3"/> a new section on the aftermath of independence so it's a sort of overlap <pause dur="0.6"/> lecture <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.9"/> occupies this <pause dur="0.3"/> marginal ambivalent position between the end of this term and the beginning of next term <pause dur="0.3"/> just in the same way as it discusses this ambivalent period <pause dur="0.3"/> between <pause dur="0.4"/> the end of the revolutionary period when <pause dur="0.5"/> outright fighting between the advocates of independence and <pause dur="0.6"/> continued royalism <pause dur="0.9"/> <trunc>w</trunc> was <trunc>p</trunc> was # <pause dur="0.5"/> still going on and <pause dur="0.2"/> the period when new republics were being constructed and what i'd like to talk about is nationalism i'd like to talk about the 
process <pause dur="0.4"/> of creating new nations <pause dur="0.7"/> in <pause dur="0.7"/> the newly independent <pause dur="1.0"/> Latin American republics <pause dur="1.0"/> so what we've looked at in the last couple of lectures the process through which <pause dur="0.4"/> Spanish America became independent <pause dur="0.6"/> of <pause dur="0.9"/> European rule <pause dur="0.8"/> and what i want to look at is <pause dur="0.2"/> the process of nationalism broadly <pause dur="0.8"/> or to look at it another way i want to look at the question of what changed <pause dur="1.0"/> after independence i want to ask <pause dur="0.6"/> how did human existence in Spanish America <pause dur="0.7"/> change <pause dur="0.8"/> after <pause dur="0.4"/> the process of political independence <pause dur="0.5"/> that's the broad question which i'm going to try to be answering in this lecture now this might seem like a really obvious question i mean a process <pause dur="1.2"/> by which Spanish America separated itself <pause dur="0.2"/> from <pause dur="0.7"/> European rule <pause dur="1.2"/> resulted in dramatic changes politically it resulted in Spanish America ceasing to be a Spanish colony and it implemented democratic rule <pause dur="0.4"/> and republicanism <pause dur="0.7"/> across the continent and # <pause dur="0.8"/> this might seem like an enormously large change <pause dur="0.7"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> politically it undoubtedly was an enormous 
change <pause dur="0.4"/> what i would like to ask though is how this affected the individuals who were living in Spanish America who were <pause dur="0.7"/> experiencing this change <pause dur="1.0"/> i think the best way to proceed <pause dur="0.6"/> in this examination is <pause dur="0.5"/> to begin by discussing the things that didn't change i think that's the thing i'd like to do first i'd like to discuss what remained <pause dur="0.7"/> basically exactly the same <pause dur="0.4"/> after independence from Spain <pause dur="0.5"/> and to do this let's let's <pause dur="0.2"/> start by <pause dur="0.5"/> supposing for a moment say that <pause dur="0.9"/> you <pause dur="0.4"/> me all of us <pause dur="0.3"/> were <pause dur="0.5"/> say were Indians who were resident in an small village in the Andes in <pause dur="0.2"/> the new republic of Ecuador say Ecuador was created <pause dur="0.4"/> in eighteen-thirty as a separate republic <pause dur="1.4"/> supposing that you lived in this this village well prior to <pause dur="0.4"/> independence and you worked perhaps on a small plot a small plot of land you were basically a farmer and you might produce <pause dur="0.4"/> a certain amount of <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> <trunc>o</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>pro</trunc> artisanal products like hats <pause dur="0.2"/> to sell at the local market <pause dur="0.5"/> and you would lead an <trunc>ex</trunc> an existence in this small 
village well prior to independence <pause dur="0.4"/> your <pause dur="0.6"/> primary contacts with the state <pause dur="0.4"/> such as it was with the colonial state <pause dur="0.4"/> would have been <pause dur="0.2"/> first of all the payment of Indian tribute do you remember that i talked about Indian tribute <pause dur="0.7"/> in previous lectures <pause dur="1.4"/> tribute would have been <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the prime moments of connection <pause dur="0.6"/> one of the prime annual moments of connection <pause dur="0.3"/> with the colonial state you would have had contact with the state when you paid tribute and you would also <trunc>p</trunc> say <pause dur="0.4"/> have had contact with the state when you for example purchased alcohol from the state <pause dur="0.2"/> alcohol monopoly <pause dur="0.6"/> after <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> alcohol became <pause dur="0.8"/> a state monopoly if you wanted to buy anything at all to drink <pause dur="0.4"/> you had to get it through the state <pause dur="0.2"/> so those might those were the sorts of moments when you might actually have encountered <pause dur="0.4"/> the state other than that <pause dur="0.4"/> you might perhaps have had relatively little <pause dur="0.4"/> formal contact <pause dur="0.5"/> with <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="1.0"/> # institutions of the colonial state unless you actually wanted to or unless you ended up <pause dur="0.4"/> involved in a lawsuit or 
or various other things like that you might have just gone on in some in this way having these rather limited moments of overlap with <pause dur="0.5"/> the colonial state well <pause dur="0.6"/> after independence i think these two things that i've mentioned <pause dur="0.3"/> would have remained <pause dur="0.7"/> your primary points of contact <pause dur="0.8"/> after independence <pause dur="0.5"/> # the Indian tribute was not abolished in Ecuador it it just continued the new republic <pause dur="0.3"/> simply began <pause dur="0.2"/> collecting <pause dur="0.5"/> this tax that previously had been paid to the colonial state <pause dur="0.6"/> they just stepped into the shoes of the colonial state in that regard <pause dur="0.4"/> and they also continued <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> have an ultimate to make <pause dur="0.3"/> alcohol a state monopoly <pause dur="0.4"/> for for fiscal purposes for some decades afterwards <pause dur="0.4"/> so fiscally at least in terms of government income <pause dur="1.0"/> and therefore in terms of <pause dur="0.4"/> taxation <pause dur="1.0"/> these new republics just they just slotted themselves in <pause dur="1.0"/> to <pause dur="0.6"/> the structure <pause dur="0.3"/> that the colonial state <pause dur="0.8"/> had <pause dur="0.6"/> itself established <pause dur="0.6"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> so in that regard <pause dur="0.2"/> fiscally if you look at where government revenues came from and if you look therefore 
what taxes members of the public <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>n</trunc> citizens as they now were <pause dur="0.4"/> would have been paying they were actually quite similar <pause dur="1.2"/> i mean why was this this was for quite obvious reasons these new republics were in desperate <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>financial <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>straits <pause dur="0.3"/> many of them and they needed whatever source of income they they could have and so the sorts of philosophical discussions that advocates of independence had had <pause dur="0.5"/> during the war <pause dur="0.3"/> about Indian tribute which they had condemned as being a loathsome vestige of Spanish oppression <pause dur="0.8"/> which symbolized the <pause dur="0.2"/> horrendous conditions in which the Indian population had been kept by the Spanish <pause dur="0.7"/> and these discussions just sort of get brushed aside and they decide actually they don't you know they really kind of need this money <pause dur="0.3"/> and they continue to collect it they give it a new name but they they continued to collect it <pause dur="0.8"/> and so i just suggested that fiscally <pause dur="0.6"/> and that is to say in terms of government income <pause dur="0.6"/> very little changed <pause dur="0.6"/> in the first decades <pause dur="0.5"/> after 
independence <pause dur="1.1"/> similarly i think one might argue that economically if one looks at the economy as a whole not just government revenue one might argue that <pause dur="0.3"/> economically <pause dur="0.3"/> not that much changed <pause dur="0.6"/> from the colonial period <pause dur="0.7"/> for example <pause dur="1.0"/> prior to independence <pause dur="0.6"/> the viceroyalty of New Granada what did did anybody know for extra points what New Granada became <pause dur="0.6"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> what state did it become after independence </u><pause dur="2.0"/> <u who="sf0053" trans="pause"> Gran Colombia <pause dur="0.3"/> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><u who="nf0052" trans="overlap"> yeah it became Gran Colombia <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.4"/> eventually fragmented into what's now <pause dur="0.2"/> Colombia <pause dur="0.8"/> and then Venezuela and Ecuador which as i said in eighteen-thirty <pause dur="0.3"/> split off <pause dur="0.8"/> so the viceroyalty of New Granada <pause dur="0.5"/> had <pause dur="0.4"/> depended <pause dur="0.3"/> primarily on the export of gold for example that had been its <trunc>p</trunc> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> primary source of importance for the Spanish crown <pause dur="0.3"/> that had been its biggest export <pause dur="0.2"/> to Europe <pause dur="0.6"/> and after independence not surprisingly gold continued to be <pause dur="0.7"/> Colombia's <pause dur="0.4"/> as it became <pause dur="0.4"/> primary export the economic structure of the country wasn't revolutionized <pause dur="0.2"/> by independence <pause dur="0.4"/> # 
Ecuador for example continued to export hats as they had done <pause dur="1.1"/> that's where the Panama hat comes from did i tell you this before <pause dur="1.7"/> the the Panama hat comes from Ecuador isn't that a <pause dur="0.6"/> a useful fact <pause dur="1.1"/> to know and they continued to export hats they were a major hat exporter <pause dur="0.6"/> for the region <pause dur="1.0"/> so in this ways in these regions you might argue that independence didn't bring about dramatic economic changes <pause dur="0.2"/> as a whole <pause dur="0.3"/> now i don't want to suggest that <pause dur="0.3"/> total <pause dur="0.7"/> # stagnation if that's the right word or or total continuity <pause dur="0.4"/> characterized the entirety of the post-independence <pause dur="0.4"/> experience across Spanish America as a whole in many places i think it did for the first fifty years there were some exceptions <pause dur="0.4"/> in some regions <pause dur="0.6"/> the new republican governments made substantial efforts to try to change the structure of the economy <pause dur="0.3"/> Mexico i think is the strongest example of this in the eighteen-thirties <pause dur="0.8"/> the government of Mexico there were a series succession of governments <pause dur="0.4"/> who <pause dur="1.0"/> 
deliberately attempted to <pause dur="0.4"/> foment and support <pause dur="0.2"/> domestic industry cloth making for example was explicitly being encouraged <pause dur="0.7"/> by the governments of the nineteen of the eighteen-thirties <pause dur="0.3"/> in Mexico because they wanted to try to protect the republic from <pause dur="0.4"/> the flood of primarily British <pause dur="0.4"/> imports and particularly British cloth <pause dur="0.4"/> that they felt were <pause dur="0.3"/> going were # <pause dur="0.2"/> taking over the country and were going to be preventing the development of some kind of <pause dur="0.8"/> autonomous national <pause dur="0.6"/> # industry <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="1.0"/> in Mexico you see some attempt by these new governments to actually <pause dur="0.5"/> change the way the economy is structured <pause dur="1.0"/> but <pause dur="0.7"/> i think that these were <pause dur="0.2"/> exceptions these were this was not the general trend <pause dur="0.5"/> for the first fifty years or so after independence <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> what i would like to stress was this element of continuity i think as as much as the these particular moments of change after the mid-century after about eighteen-fifty <pause dur="1.3"/> if i were going to talk about <pause dur="0.8"/> continuity i would be telling a very different story 
after eighteen-fifty i think the <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> structure of the economies in most Latin American countries changed dramatically but that is something for the future that is something we will look at in later lectures i think <pause dur="0.2"/> right now i want you to focus your attention on the first <pause dur="0.5"/> couple of decades after independence up until about <pause dur="1.0"/> # eighteen-<pause dur="0.6"/>fifty or so <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> here i said well i said <pause dur="0.7"/> government income didn't change that much i said the economy <pause dur="0.5"/> didn't change <pause dur="0.5"/> that much <pause dur="0.9"/> i mean indeed one might argue that even in places where it looked like things changed they didn't really and for example <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.4"/> the viceroyalty as was <pause dur="0.6"/> of the Rio de la Plata <pause dur="0.4"/> that's what became Argentina <pause dur="0.6"/> in the very south <pause dur="1.0"/> prior to independence <pause dur="0.3"/> this had been the the economy had been based on trade it was very much an entrepot for the importation of goods from Europe <pause dur="0.6"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> that was a point <pause dur="0.3"/> from which goods were dispersed to other parts of Spanish America <pause dur="0.2"/> and this role this <trunc>im</trunc> the most important role <pause dur="0.5"/> in this 
trade based economy <pause dur="0.4"/> was <pause dur="0.4"/> played by Spanish merchants <pause dur="0.6"/> in the colonial period <pause dur="0.3"/> there was a an elite of very wealthy Spanish merchants who dominated this colonial trade <pause dur="0.6"/> after independence out go the Spanish nobody wants Spanish merchants any more and the Spanish are # # generally <pause dur="0.2"/> # encouraged to leave <pause dur="0.6"/> however <pause dur="1.1"/> the basic <pause dur="0.2"/> structure of the economy which revolves around trade does not change all that happens <pause dur="0.2"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>is that <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/> the role that had been played by Spanish merchants is taken over by Creoles <pause dur="0.4"/> who step into the shoes <pause dur="0.9"/> of the Spanish merchants and take over these trade networks <pause dur="0.6"/> # as John Lynch <trunc>m</trunc> <trunc>m</trunc> might put it as as he <pause dur="0.4"/> # describes it in one of his books same new old new rider <pause dur="1.6"/> so <pause dur="0.9"/> we don't have enormous fiscal or economic <pause dur="0.2"/> changes <pause dur="0.9"/> what about society in what ways was everyday life different <pause dur="0.3"/> in an independent republic <pause dur="1.0"/> i've already suggested that in some ways things might not be that different the state continues to collect taxes peasants continue <pause dur="0.4"/> to work the land <pause dur="0.3"/> traders 
continue to struggle for a living <pause dur="1.1"/> was then am i then suggesting that actually <pause dur="0.8"/> life in an independent nation was really just the same as in <pause dur="0.5"/> a colony <pause dur="1.0"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> what i'd like you to focus on is <pause dur="0.2"/> that phrase independent nation that's what i'd like you <pause dur="0.4"/> to think about <pause dur="0.7"/> and the <trunc>id</trunc> the <trunc>th</trunc> that phrase i think <pause dur="0.4"/> suggests <pause dur="0.5"/> one area where one might fruitfully look <pause dur="0.3"/> for changes <pause dur="0.7"/> in <pause dur="0.8"/> society and culture <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to take a step back though from Spanish America at this point and ask how many of you have studied European history of the nineteenth century at all <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah <pause dur="1.0"/> do you remember the process of nation building do you remember reading about the <trunc>n</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> process of nation building in Germany and Italy <pause dur="0.4"/> during this period <pause dur="0.6"/> does this ring bells <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" iterated="n" n="ss"/><kinesic desc="nod heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> yeah <pause dur="1.0"/> well <pause dur="0.5"/> i think if you recall <pause dur="0.2"/> studying those topics you surely talked about the growth of nationalism <pause dur="0.8"/> in these regions <pause dur="1.1"/> and this is what i'd like to talk about <pause dur="0.5"/> now as i suggested at the beginning of the lecture <pause dur="1.2"/> <trunc>w</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> well we might start by saying <pause dur="0.6"/> what what is 
nationalism what does nationalism mean <pause dur="0.4"/> if you look it up in a dictionary <trunc>national</trunc> the dictionary will say something helpful like nationalism is the devotion to the interests of a particular nation <pause dur="1.0"/> now <pause dur="0.8"/> this seems to me to beg the question of what a nation is <pause dur="1.3"/> we might indeed ask were the Spanish colonies <pause dur="0.5"/> prior to independence <pause dur="0.4"/> were these nations <pause dur="1.1"/> was <pause dur="0.9"/> the viceroyalty of New Spain I-E Mexico was that <pause dur="0.6"/> a nation <pause dur="0.6"/> actually let's take a little poll how many people know i'm not going to ask you to justify this how many people think they were <pause dur="0.3"/> nations how many thinks Mexico was a nation <pause dur="1.0"/> prior to independence <pause dur="1.4"/> absolutely nobody interesting how many thinks <pause dur="0.4"/> how many thinks how many people think <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="1.2"/> it wasn't <pause dur="1.7"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" iterated="n" n="ss"/> yeah <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah there's an overwhelming majority it seems to me in favour of <pause dur="0.4"/> wasn't <pause dur="1.1"/> that that's certainly my view <pause dur="0.3"/> but it was not the view <pause dur="0.4"/> of the advocates of independence <pause dur="0.8"/> and this is something that i will talk about <pause dur="0.3"/> in a moment <pause dur="1.5"/> this is an area where there is currently a lot of 
rather interesting <pause dur="0.2"/> historical research being done this is something that i think historians right now are quite interested in this question of nationalism and where it comes from because you've all just said to me <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> unequivocally it seems to me <pause dur="0.2"/> that these places were not <pause dur="0.2"/> nations so how do they become nations how does Mexico become Mexico how does it become <pause dur="0.5"/> a nation <pause dur="1.4"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> what happens i think <pause dur="0.3"/> is that this doesn't this process doesn't occur naturally i think those of you who studied <pause dur="0.9"/> European nationalism in the nineteenth century i think would probably <pause dur="0.8"/> agree with this <pause dur="0.3"/> that nationalism is not something that springs fully formed <pause dur="0.8"/> from pre-existing nations it's something which is encouraged <pause dur="0.4"/> and developed <pause dur="1.2"/> and # <pause dur="0.4"/> created even one might say <pause dur="1.1"/> by <pause dur="0.2"/> people <pause dur="0.6"/> and what i'd like us to look at is the way in which <pause dur="0.9"/> the idea of nationalism was deliberately <pause dur="0.5"/> fostered <pause dur="0.5"/> by <pause dur="0.3"/> the political leaders of these new republics in the first decades <pause dur="0.3"/> after independence <pause dur="1.2"/> well <pause dur="0.4"/> how you might ask do you foment an idea of 
nation and how do you create a sense <pause dur="0.5"/> of nationalism <pause dur="0.8"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> at the most basic level <pause dur="0.5"/> one of the ways in which the early politicians in the first decades after independence <pause dur="0.4"/> helped <pause dur="0.5"/> spread an idea or indeed during the period of independence itself helped spread an idea of nationalism was just by talking about the nation a lot <pause dur="0.4"/> if one looks at <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.9"/> proclamations the speeches the <pause dur="0.6"/> <trunc>ma</trunc> # the manifestos and the <pause dur="0.4"/> pieces of <pause dur="0.3"/> discourse produced by <pause dur="0.7"/> these early politicians one sees an incredible preponderance of the phrase nation of <distinct lang="es">la nación</distinct> <pause dur="0.5"/> which is <pause dur="0.9"/> just by <trunc>s</trunc> sheer numerical bulk if one counts the number of references to it is is quite striking <pause dur="0.9"/> i think this is one of and indeed they talked also about the need to create a nation <pause dur="0.5"/> and i want to take one example rather than just talking generally about Spanish America i want to look at Chile for <pause dur="0.5"/> look at the process of creating some sense of nationalism in <pause dur="0.3"/> Chile <pause dur="0.8"/> in the first couple of decades after independence so you just have a concrete 
example that you can hang this stuff on <pause dur="1.0"/> there's also some very nice work done on Chile i i should <pause dur="0.5"/> in the spirit of scholarly <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> acknowledgement i should say that <pause dur="0.4"/> what i'm about to say is taken partly from the work of Simon Collier who's <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> <pause dur="0.7"/> # so this is a footnote to my lecture <pause dur="2.3"/> you know i like to <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.6"/> nod towards Simon Collier who's done this nice work on <pause dur="0.3"/> on Chilean nationalism can you see that </u><pause dur="0.3"/> <u who="sm0054" trans="pause"> no </u><pause dur="0.2"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> no <event desc="moves television" iterated="y" dur="4"/></u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="sm0055" trans="pause"> <gap reason="inaudible" extent="1 sec"/></u><pause dur="3.3"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> can you see it now <pause dur="0.4"/> good <pause dur="2.4"/> and he's gone through a lot of these republican proclamations and texts and he's looked at how they talk about <pause dur="0.6"/> the Chilean nation <pause dur="0.2"/> and so for example he's <pause dur="0.5"/> he notes that for example in eighteen-eleven at the very beginning of the process of independence while the war of independence was really just beginning to gear up in Chile <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> Chilean politicians asserted for example that the government ought to <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>create <pause dur="0.4"/> give existence <pause dur="0.3"/> politics and opinions <pause dur="0.5"/> 
to a nation <pause dur="0.3"/> which has never had them before</reading> <pause dur="2.2"/> so there for example somebody's suggesting that actually in eighteen-eleven that there is a Chilean nation that there's a Chilean nation <pause dur="0.6"/> right there it's just never had <pause dur="0.2"/> any existence or politics <pause dur="0.5"/> or opinions <pause dur="0.3"/> there's a somewhat contradictory <pause dur="0.7"/> suggestion <pause dur="0.7"/> journalists <trunc>pro</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> proclaimed in their revolutionary <pause dur="0.3"/> periodicals we are the founders of a nation <pause dur="1.2"/> there was this <pause dur="0.5"/> constant reference to the nation as this # <pause dur="0.4"/> concrete thing <pause dur="0.5"/> that really existed <pause dur="1.2"/> there was intense celebration also in republican discourse of <pause dur="0.8"/> the <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> <pause dur="0.2"/> the motherland <pause dur="0.4"/> this is a vital term if one's going to be looking <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> at this period this is <pause dur="0.4"/> <distinct lang="es">la patria</distinct> <pause dur="3.0"/> which is an interesting word in Spanish i mean it means the motherland or the fatherland depending on how you wish to translate it <pause dur="0.5"/> what's interesting about it is <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> <pause dur="0.4"/> # in a sense would suggest fatherland <pause dur="0.4"/> it's etymologically <pause dur="0.8"/> 
<trunc>etymolologico</trunc> i got lost on that word related <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> the word <distinct lang="es">padre</distinct> for father <pause dur="0.8"/> so it suggests perhaps fatherland it's also feminine <kinesic desc="indicates point on board" iterated="n"/> it's a feminine <pause dur="0.4"/> noun <pause dur="1.3"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> it somehow suggests motherland at the same time and <trunc>in</trunc> indeed people sometimes like to talk <pause dur="0.5"/> even more all inclusively not just about the <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> the the fatherland <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="6"/> but about the <pause dur="0.4"/> the <distinct lang="es">madre patria</distinct> <pause dur="2.9"/> can you read that <pause dur="0.9"/> can people read that <pause dur="0.7"/> no <pause dur="0.4"/> the <distinct lang="es">madre patria</distinct> <pause dur="0.3"/> which combines everything <distinct lang="es">madre</distinct> is mother <pause dur="0.2"/> so it's the mother-father land in a sense <pause dur="0.6"/> this was a phrase that was # particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> popular during this <pause dur="0.5"/> this period <pause dur="1.3"/> there was great celebration then as i said of the <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> of this new fatherland of the nation one of the heroes of independence wonderfully named Bernardo O'Higgins <pause dur="0.4"/> isn't this a great name that the <pause dur="0.3"/> one of the great heroes of Chilean independence was actually called O'Higgins <pause dur="0.3"/> this points to the tremendous <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>impre</trunc> # importance of <pause dur="0.6"/> the British <pause dur="0.7"/> and Irish <pause dur="0.5"/> 
volunteers who went to fight for the republicans Bernardo O'Higgins <pause dur="0.2"/> # came to become one of these great heroes and he proclaimed <pause dur="0.5"/> as he crossed the Andes <pause dur="0.4"/> leading <pause dur="0.2"/> his <pause dur="0.2"/> soon to be victorious republican army <pause dur="0.6"/> chum to victory <pause dur="0.6"/> i'm leaving it now <pause dur="0.3"/> and again i found this didn't quite work <pause dur="0.4"/> but he <trunc>c</trunc> and he had proclaimed as he crossed the Andes <reading>oh dear <distinct lang="es">patria</distinct> beautiful Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> once again you occupy the rank of a nation</reading> after it had been liberated he suggests that # Chile <pause dur="0.3"/> again is occupying <pause dur="0.7"/> the rank of nation one might ask what it means to say that Chile was once again occupying the rank of nation <pause dur="0.8"/> now what does that <pause dur="0.6"/> mean <pause dur="0.9"/> # it might be said as you were suggesting a moment ago that Chile wasn't a nation at all <pause dur="0.7"/> before it was independent <pause dur="0.5"/> from Spain <pause dur="0.4"/> and i think this is another typical element of this early nineteenth century Spanish American nationalism <pause dur="0.5"/> that's to say that while some individuals some republican leaders <pause dur="0.4"/> laid stress on the need to create a nation some people did this 
some people suggested that there wasn't any sort of nation there <pause dur="0.5"/> and they had to forge it out of <pause dur="0.4"/> the raw earth <pause dur="0.6"/> other republican leaders and this was a much more typical <pause dur="0.5"/> form of <pause dur="0.6"/> discourse <pause dur="0.4"/> insisted that they were merely <pause dur="0.2"/> through advocating independence they were merely rescuing <pause dur="0.4"/> the nation <pause dur="0.5"/> from <pause dur="0.2"/> some sort of unjust servitude into which it had been plunged by the Spanish the suggestion in other words is that the nation was always there <pause dur="0.8"/> that it didn't come into existence at independence <pause dur="0.3"/> now those of you who read The Jamaica Letter <pause dur="1.0"/> for the last seminar <pause dur="0.5"/> will have had an encounter with this sort of language <pause dur="1.2"/> if you cast your minds back to Simón Bolívar's Jamaica Letter <pause dur="1.0"/> you'll recall that he talks repeatedly <pause dur="0.5"/> about <pause dur="0.5"/> we the Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> about America about the American nations <pause dur="0.5"/> about the American peoples <pause dur="0.2"/> as having been there <pause dur="0.2"/> prior to <pause dur="0.2"/> the arrival of the Spanish he describes the period of Spanish rule <pause dur="0.3"/> as three-hundred years of tyranny <pause dur="1.1"/> i think that very phrase appears in The Jamaica 
Letter that became a very resonant phrase for the republican leaders <pause dur="1.4"/> but that this period of tyranny had not been sufficient <pause dur="0.2"/> to squash <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> nationalist impulses <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.6"/> the Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> so if you look at The Jamaica Letter i think you can you'll see good examples of this sort of language <pause dur="1.0"/> not from Chile but <pause dur="0.4"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> farther north <pause dur="0.6"/> from Venezuela <pause dur="0.6"/> and well <pause dur="0.4"/> # New Granada as a whole <pause dur="1.1"/> so i think that there you've had a bit of a brush with this idea and he talks about the <pause dur="0.4"/> he uses the word nation and you can go back and have a look at it and see what he has to say <pause dur="2.3"/> now i want to spend a little more time thinking about what this suggestion that there had always been a nation <pause dur="0.3"/> how how that works <pause dur="0.4"/> well <pause dur="1.0"/> what does it mean to go back to our example of Chile <pause dur="1.0"/> if one was going to talk about there always having been a Chilean nation <pause dur="0.5"/> how was one going to make this work how was this <pause dur="0.5"/> argument going to run <pause dur="0.5"/> well <pause dur="0.9"/> clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> the period of Spanish rule had been a period of denial of national 
aspirations i mean there was no question for the <trunc>re</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> the republicans <pause dur="0.4"/> that that was what had occurred <pause dur="0.5"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> what was it what was the true Chilean nation that was being suppressed by this period of Spanish tyranny that's the question <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> faced these <pause dur="0.3"/> creators of <pause dur="0.7"/> # new Chilean nationalism they had to cast around for some sort of Chilean nation <pause dur="0.4"/> they had to find something that they could legitimately hold up and say that was what Chile was before the Spanish <pause dur="0.6"/> came and arrived <pause dur="0.4"/> well <pause dur="0.8"/> fortunately for Chilean nationalists they had a suitable object <pause dur="0.7"/> of nationalistic reverence <pause dur="0.2"/> close to hand <pause dur="1.2"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> this these were the Araucanian Indians <pause dur="0.6"/> i will i will <pause dur="0.4"/> write this <pause dur="0.6"/> and you know i'll misspell it for you on <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="2"/> the board <pause dur="1.8"/> i can't spell anything A-U-R-O-<kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="3"/>C-A-<pause dur="0.3"/>N-I-<pause dur="0.4"/>A-<pause dur="0.5"/>N i think that's right <pause dur="0.6"/> maybe it's A-R-<pause dur="0.4"/>A-U <pause dur="0.3"/> yes <pause dur="2.9"/><event desc="wipes board" iterated="y" dur="1"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> A-U-R-A-U that looks right to me <pause dur="0.9"/> no <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="wipes board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> we'll get there in the end <pause dur="4.2"/><kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> 
<trunc>araucan</trunc> does anybody know botany <pause dur="1.6"/> no <pause dur="0.7"/> then you could spell it for me if anybody knew botany you could spell that for me <pause dur="0.4"/> because <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> your encounter with the # word <pause dur="0.3"/> araucania <pause dur="0.5"/> would perhaps have been in the form of <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> the monkey puzzle tree <pause dur="1.4"/> do you know these weird trees <pause dur="1.0"/> do you know what i mean <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="nod heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> those are from Chile those are sometimes called araucanians <pause dur="1.9"/> those trees they're named after the same Indians <pause dur="0.5"/> because they grow <pause dur="0.5"/> in Chile <pause dur="0.7"/> anyway who are the Araucanians so badly spelled Indians <pause dur="0.6"/> the the Araucanians were <pause dur="0.2"/> one of the original <pause dur="0.3"/> indigenous groups that had inhabited the region that became Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> when the Spanish <pause dur="0.2"/> arrived <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.8"/> they had put up <pause dur="0.3"/> a <pause dur="0.4"/> prolonged resistance <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.4"/> the Spanish conquistadors <pause dur="0.4"/> in <pause dur="0.7"/> particularly <pause dur="0.4"/> the sixteenth and the <trunc>sevent</trunc> and in continuing into the seventeenth and indeed up until <pause dur="0.5"/> the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries throughout the entire period of the Spanish <pause dur="0.4"/> colony <pause dur="0.4"/> the Araucanians had continued to sort of hold off <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> onslaughts of <pause dur="0.3"/> 
the Spanish colonial state <pause dur="1.0"/> and had <pause dur="0.2"/> without question <pause dur="0.2"/> resisted <pause dur="0.5"/> # their conversion into <pause dur="0.2"/> subjects <pause dur="0.4"/> of the Spanish king <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> what happens there they were i mean there were these these these people who definitely existed so what happens <pause dur="0.3"/> was that in the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.7"/> Creole nationalists began to celebrate <pause dur="0.4"/> the daring exploits of the Araucanian Indians who began to be presented as <pause dur="0.4"/> the original Chileans <pause dur="0.3"/> Simón Bolívar for example proclaimed the Araucanians to have been proud republicans <pause dur="1.3"/> and there's no particular evidence that the Araucanians had had a republican form of rule <pause dur="0.4"/> but there's the meaning of this rhetorical phrase i think should be evident <pause dur="0.5"/> Chilean nationalists began to describe themselves as the true sons <pause dur="0.3"/> of the Araucanians <pause dur="0.8"/> indeed some people even referred to the ongoing war of independence against the Spanish as <pause dur="0.5"/> the war of Araucanian independence <pause dur="1.4"/> Araucanian in other words began to become a poetic way of 
saying Chile <pause dur="0.9"/> for for these individuals <pause dur="1.2"/> so <pause dur="0.7"/> what i'm suggesting is that one way in which these republican leaders tried <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="1.6"/> create a sense of nationalism <pause dur="0.3"/> was through inventing an appropriate <pause dur="0.7"/> heroic <pause dur="0.4"/> national past <pause dur="0.8"/> now why do i say invent and i just said that the Araucanians really existed <pause dur="1.3"/> and that they indeed had <pause dur="0.6"/> resisted <pause dur="0.6"/> the Spanish <pause dur="0.3"/> well i think that it's <pause dur="0.2"/> the reason i would like to use the word invent to <pause dur="0.6"/> describe <pause dur="0.6"/> this process of celebration of Araucanian <pause dur="0.9"/> heroism <pause dur="0.3"/> was that the leaders of Chilean independence were <pause dur="0.2"/> by no <pause dur="0.2"/> sense at all <pause dur="0.3"/> the true descendants of the Araucanians <pause dur="0.6"/> and if anything <pause dur="0.4"/> the leaders of <pause dur="0.2"/> the republican movement <pause dur="0.5"/> were <pause dur="0.4"/> the perhaps descendants of the hated Spanish i mean these were largely Creole leaders who were putting forth this rhetoric about <pause dur="1.0"/> the Araucanians they were not people of of Indian descent themselves they were people who were <pause dur="0.4"/> Europeanized in their culture <pause dur="0.5"/> and who <pause dur="0.3"/> were <pause dur="0.3"/> of European extraction <pause dur="1.1"/> moreover <pause dur="0.2"/> more than this the actual genuine descendants 
of the Araucanians who were still very much <pause dur="0.5"/> # in existence in the early nineteenth century <pause dur="0.4"/> did not always share <pause dur="0.4"/> the Creoles' enthusiasm for the new state <pause dur="0.8"/> on the contrary a number of the Indians living in Chile <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>s</trunc> actually supported the Spanish crown <pause dur="0.6"/> in the war of independence <pause dur="0.9"/> so the point i'm making here is that the development of the idea <pause dur="0.9"/> of Chilean nationhood <pause dur="0.4"/> relied in part on on what i think one can fairly describe as an invention of a heroic past <pause dur="1.4"/> <trunc>the</trunc> these Araucanians were were people who were roped only somewhat awkwardly into <pause dur="0.6"/> the general <pause dur="0.4"/> propagandistic drive <pause dur="0.3"/> to support Chilean independence <pause dur="0.6"/> however <pause dur="0.4"/> once <pause dur="0.2"/> republicans <pause dur="0.2"/> seize on the Araucanians as the original Chileans as the source of all <pause dur="0.3"/> Chilean republicanism <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.7"/> at least provided it was intended to provide <pause dur="0.8"/> some sort of common past to which <pause dur="0.3"/> all new Chileans supposedly <pause dur="0.5"/> had some sort of access something which they all supposedly had in common that we were all <pause dur="0.3"/> republican leaders proclaimed descendants of the 
Araucanians <pause dur="0.4"/> either <pause dur="0.6"/> actually <pause dur="0.4"/> or metaphorically <pause dur="1.3"/> so <pause dur="1.1"/> here at least is here is something here is one element <pause dur="0.3"/> that one might <pause dur="0.3"/> regard as being an important part <pause dur="0.4"/> of creating a sense of nationalism that is to say have a feeling you have something in common <pause dur="0.9"/> with the other people in your nation <pause dur="0.9"/> yeah <pause dur="0.4"/> however i think one might suggest that <pause dur="1.1"/> regarding yourself as a nation requires <pause dur="1.3"/> not only <pause dur="0.8"/> that you have <pause dur="0.2"/> something in common <pause dur="0.7"/> with other people in the nation you might also <trunc>s</trunc> it might be suggested and i think there's often suggested by people who write about nationalism that you also need to feel different from everybody else <pause dur="0.8"/> members of a nation as often suggested by people who write <pause dur="0.2"/> weighty tomes on nationalism <pause dur="0.7"/> need to feel separate from those people who aren't members of the nation in some way <pause dur="1.0"/> i think i'll take i'll take another little poll <pause dur="0.3"/> how many people here actually here feel <pause dur="0.4"/> that in <trunc>s</trunc> in some way at all the British are different from the French <pause dur="1.9"/><kinesic desc="put hands up" iterated="n" n="ss"/> yeah <pause dur="1.2"/> yeah i 
think there's a general sense of differentness <pause dur="0.4"/> coming out here <pause dur="0.3"/> and i'm not going to ask you why <pause dur="0.6"/> you think <pause dur="0.4"/> # this is the case <pause dur="0.4"/> but there are several distinctive things it seems to me about the U-K <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.5"/> make it different from France <pause dur="0.2"/> and which you might regard as essential elements of national ideology <pause dur="0.3"/> i mean for one thing a really obvious thing that one might mention <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> that a different language is spoken <pause dur="0.7"/> in these two different countries between Britain and France <pause dur="0.9"/> anyone going to argue with that <pause dur="1.1"/> no <pause dur="0.2"/> good <pause dur="0.6"/> i think another thing that we might note is the clear geographical distinction <pause dur="0.2"/> that separates <pause dur="0.3"/> France <pause dur="0.8"/> and Britain <pause dur="1.3"/> now <pause dur="0.4"/> here is or here are two elements oft-cited <pause dur="0.5"/> as classic components of nationalistic identity <pause dur="0.4"/> a distinct language <pause dur="0.3"/> and some kind of <pause dur="0.6"/> geographical cohesion as a <pause dur="0.4"/> as a place well <pause dur="0.4"/> how many of these features applied <pause dur="0.8"/> to continue <pause dur="0.2"/> our example to Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> let's just stick with Chile for a minute well <pause dur="0.4"/> language for one thing hardly served to distinguish 
Chileans from <pause dur="0.3"/> Peruvians or Mexicans or anyone else <pause dur="0.4"/> if anything language was a source of unity <pause dur="1.3"/> yeah <pause dur="0.3"/> # it's not quite true to say that everybody in Spanish America spoke Spanish <pause dur="0.3"/> that's not quite true <pause dur="0.5"/> there are for example <pause dur="1.0"/> parts of Spanish America where the majority of the population spoke an indigenous language like Aymara or <pause dur="0.2"/> Quechua do you want me to write that on the board <pause dur="0.6"/> with my wonderful spelling <pause dur="0.3"/> or no <pause dur="1.1"/><kinesic desc="shake heads" iterated="n" n="ss"/> no good <pause dur="0.5"/> good <pause dur="0.7"/> however despite this despite these pockets of <pause dur="1.1"/> <trunc>que</trunc> Quechua speakers in Peru for example Spanish was the lingua franca <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.7"/> this area <pause dur="0.6"/> inhabitants in Chile and from Chile and from Venezuela for example would be able to converse <pause dur="0.2"/> with each other without <pause dur="0.4"/> any real sense of difference at all <pause dur="0.2"/> so language doesn't seem to be working as a marker of difference <pause dur="1.0"/> what about geography <pause dur="1.2"/> what about that <pause dur="0.5"/> well i think this is a more <trunc>perv</trunc> persuasive area <pause dur="0.6"/> for national demarcation <pause dur="0.5"/> it's an interesting fact that if one looks at the frontiers <pause dur="0.3"/> of these new republics that 
came into existence after independence <pause dur="0.5"/> they <pause dur="0.9"/> coincided <pause dur="0.7"/> remarkably precisely <pause dur="0.3"/> with the frontiers <pause dur="0.4"/> of the former viceroyalties <pause dur="0.4"/> during the colonial period now i've got a little <trunc>m</trunc> <event desc="turns on overhead projector" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> that's what this map is supposed to show <pause dur="0.3"/> i want to show the amazing <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> overlap <pause dur="0.8"/> oh <pause dur="0.9"/> between <pause dur="2.8"/><event desc="pulls down screen" iterated="n"/> now <pause dur="0.7"/> let's see <event desc="adjusts overhead projector" iterated="n"/> first of all it's on the ceiling <event desc="moves board" iterated="y" dur="1"/> second of all <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="adjusts overhead projector" iterated="y" dur="6"/> it's out of focus tell me when that's in focus </u><pause dur="1.5"/> <u who="sm0055" trans="pause"> mm <pause dur="1.4"/> mm </u><pause dur="0.4"/> <u who="nf0052" trans="pause"> yeah <pause dur="0.9"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> here we have <pause dur="0.3"/> a map showing <pause dur="0.6"/> broadly you can look at the one in front of you if you prefer <pause dur="0.4"/> the contours of <pause dur="0.4"/> the colonial <pause dur="0.2"/> viceroyalties in seventeen-eighty and you can see up here <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here's the viceroyalty of New Granada <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> there's the viceroyalty of Peru extending down into Chile <pause dur="0.6"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here's the viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> and up there we have <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> Mexico the viceroyalty of New Spain <pause dur="0.5"/> now if <kinesic desc="puts transparency on top of current transparency" iterated="n"/> i hope this works <pause dur="0.2"/> if we 
superimpose over this <pause dur="0.7"/> will this work this will be <pause dur="0.7"/> is this working <pause dur="2.7"/> is that working <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="takes off top transparency" iterated="n"/> here let me just show you <pause dur="0.3"/> here's the map <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.8"/> eighteen-thirty of their rough divisions in eighteen-thirty okay <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here we have <pause dur="0.2"/> Mexico <pause dur="0.2"/> you can see that <pause dur="0.4"/> Central America has broken off Central America has kind of split off as a new place of its own <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Gran Colombia is there <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Peru is there <pause dur="0.8"/> <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Rio de la Plata's there we get Chile <pause dur="0.7"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> and Bolivia and Paraguay popping up <pause dur="0.7"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> basically it looks pretty strikingly similar and this <kinesic desc="puts transparency on top of current transparency" iterated="n"/> now i hope this does work <pause dur="0.7"/> if we lay one on the top of the other we should see <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> the coincidence <pause dur="0.9"/> of these divisions is that working <pause dur="0.8"/> yeah <pause dur="0.7"/> i think you can see <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> the stripy bits <pause dur="0.3"/> are the old colonial divisions and you can see <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> some changes but i mean basically <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> Gran Colombia is the same <pause dur="0.4"/> as the viceroyalty of New Granada pretty much right <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> there continues Mexico up there <pause dur="0.3"/> with the loss of <pause dur="1.0"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> # Central America <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> there's Peru continuing to be Peru Chile has split off but i mean there <pause dur="0.5"/> it's really striking 
similarities in other words the frontiers i think <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="turns off overhead projector" iterated="n"/> these new republics <pause dur="0.3"/> suggests <pause dur="0.2"/> that some sense of geographical <pause dur="1.9"/> unity <pause dur="0.2"/> was created during the colonial period itself i mean these boundaries those colonial divisions <pause dur="0.4"/> were things that were <pause dur="1.3"/> created <pause dur="0.4"/> partly <pause dur="0.2"/> in acknowledgement of existing <pause dur="1.1"/> # the frontiers of existing empires i mean Peru <pause dur="0.7"/> had something to do with the frontiers of the Inca state <pause dur="0.4"/> but basically not very much i mean basically these colonial divisions were things that were superimposed on the continent by the Spanish <pause dur="0.4"/> without <pause dur="0.3"/> particular reference to <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="1.3"/> geographical or cultural integrity <pause dur="0.3"/> at the time that these boundaries were drawn up <pause dur="0.4"/> yet <pause dur="1.2"/> three-hundred years later <trunc>o</trunc> or so by <pause dur="0.4"/> independence <pause dur="0.4"/> these boundaries have taken on enough of a life of their own that they persist <pause dur="0.5"/> after independence <pause dur="0.9"/> they persist in shaping <pause dur="0.4"/> of the the geography of the new republic <pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> i think that one could suggest <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> the colonial period in Spanish America which 
had created these administrative units which is what the viceroyalties <pause dur="0.4"/> really were <pause dur="0.4"/> did <pause dur="0.8"/> lend to the new republican project <pause dur="0.3"/> one <pause dur="0.4"/> element for for <trunc>na</trunc> some sense of nationalism <pause dur="0.3"/> which was these broad divisions that separated people in Mexico <pause dur="0.3"/> from people <pause dur="0.3"/> in Gran Colombia or that made a distinction between Gran Colombia and Peru to some extent <pause dur="0.9"/> but is this enough i mean is geographical <pause dur="0.5"/> are geographical boundaries <pause dur="0.3"/> sufficient <pause dur="0.4"/> to create a sense of nationalism <pause dur="1.2"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> one can already say maybe they weren't because here we see what happens to Chile and one <trunc>as</trunc> one might ask how does Chile <pause dur="0.5"/> come into existence at all if these geographical boundaries were so tremendously <pause dur="0.4"/> predominant you might think there's some reason for suggesting that <pause dur="1.1"/> geography alone doesn't create a sense of <pause dur="0.3"/> nationalism i mean there are all sorts of <pause dur="0.4"/> broad entities that you are members of that you might not think of yourselves as having any kind of sense of national <pause dur="0.4"/> connection to <pause dur="0.5"/> i mean to give a <trunc>f</trunc> there's 
a famous quote from somebody called Benedict Anderson who's written particularly <pause dur="0.3"/> interestingly <pause dur="0.5"/> on <pause dur="0.8"/> the question of nationalism he commented on exactly this issue of how geographical boundaries don't necessarily in themselves <pause dur="0.6"/> create a nationalistic sense <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.8"/> he said he argues that <reading>in themselves market zones <pause dur="0.2"/> national <trunc>geo</trunc> natural geographic or political <pause dur="0.4"/> administrative units do not create emotive attachments</reading> he suggested and he went on to say <pause dur="0.4"/> rather memorably <pause dur="0.2"/> <reading>who would willingly die for the European Economic Community</reading> <pause dur="1.5"/> now <pause dur="0.2"/> i think that's an interesting <trunc>sig</trunc> example of <pause dur="0.6"/> a geographical <pause dur="0.3"/> entity <pause dur="1.4"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't <trunc>pro</trunc> hasn't brought with it any sense of nationalism i <trunc>th</trunc> as far as anyone has been able to discern <pause dur="0.9"/> at all in other words <pause dur="0.3"/> mere geographical <pause dur="0.4"/> or economic <pause dur="0.4"/> unity is not necessarily enough <pause dur="0.2"/> to create a sense <pause dur="0.5"/> of nationhood even though it perhaps <pause dur="0.2"/> helps <pause dur="0.3"/> so we need something more <pause dur="0.2"/> we need to go we need <pause dur="0.2"/> more i mean 
everything i've been doing up until now is saying but that's not enough i mean we need more <pause dur="0.6"/> well <pause dur="1.8"/> i said <pause dur="0.2"/> some minutes ago <pause dur="0.4"/> that one thing <pause dur="0.4"/> that might be a useful element <pause dur="0.2"/> of creating some sense of nationalism is not only a sense of unity <pause dur="0.4"/> but a sense of feeling <pause dur="0.3"/> different <pause dur="0.4"/> from <pause dur="0.5"/> somebody <pause dur="0.4"/> in a sense they're feeling that there were there were outsiders who weren't <pause dur="0.5"/> Chilean in some sense <pause dur="1.8"/> there was after independence there was one <pause dur="0.8"/> obvious group <pause dur="1.0"/> to be <pause dur="0.3"/> put in the role of outsider i think there was one obvious category of people who the Chileans could say they definitely weren't <pause dur="0.9"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> that obvious answer is the Spanish i mean i think that's the one <pause dur="1.0"/> obvious category of people <pause dur="0.4"/> that Chilean nationalists could construct themselves as being in opposition <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="1.5"/> now <pause dur="0.9"/> after independence what happens is that there is in fact <pause dur="0.4"/> a deliberate <pause dur="0.3"/> exclusion <pause dur="0.4"/> of <trunc>spani</trunc> of the Spanish <pause dur="0.5"/> from <pause dur="0.4"/> positions of importance from positions of political importance positions of economic importance this happens 
across <pause dur="0.5"/> Spanish America <pause dur="0.4"/> in some places such as Mexico <pause dur="0.3"/> this <pause dur="0.2"/> attempt to categorize the Spanish as the the # <pause dur="0.9"/> the <pause dur="1.0"/> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> the other <pause dur="0.2"/> to use this this # <pause dur="0.9"/> somewhat useful phrase <pause dur="0.4"/> was manifested really dramatically by the fact that in <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>s</trunc> eighteen-twenty-eight eighteen-twenty-seven and eighteen-twenty-eight the Spanish were actually expelled from Mexico the Spanish state actually <pause dur="0.3"/> expelled all Spaniards the Mexican state expelled all Spaniards <pause dur="1.1"/> from the Mexican republic <pause dur="0.6"/> regardless of whether they supported independence or not <pause dur="0.7"/> that's an extreme example what we see is i think rejection of <pause dur="1.1"/> the Spanish heritage <pause dur="0.5"/> of the continent <pause dur="0.8"/> as as across the # the the region <pause dur="0.7"/> this is something that started during the wars of independence Simón Bolívar who i've been using as my my other example i think Simón Bolívar for example <pause dur="1.6"/> made deliberate efforts during the war of independence <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> draw a line between the Spanish and everybody else he for example in eighteen-thirteen issued a famous proclamation called <pause dur="0.5"/> 
the proclamation of war to the death <pause dur="0.5"/> in which he declared in Venezuela <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> all Spaniards who did not <pause dur="0.3"/> explicitly embrace the cause of independence <pause dur="0.3"/> would be killed <pause dur="0.3"/> by his forces <pause dur="0.2"/> however all Americans even those who rejected independence and supported the Spanish crown <pause dur="0.5"/> would be spared by virtue <pause dur="0.2"/> of being <pause dur="0.4"/> not Spanish <pause dur="1.1"/> as he put it <pause dur="0.3"/> <reading>the single title Americans <pause dur="0.2"/> shall be your safeguard and guarantee <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>o</trunc> our arms have come to protect you <pause dur="0.2"/> and they shall never be raised <pause dur="0.4"/> against a single one of you <pause dur="0.7"/> or your brothers</reading> <pause dur="0.9"/> in other words he's here in this very early <pause dur="0.2"/> phase of the move towards nationalism in eighteen-thirteen <pause dur="0.7"/> suggesting <pause dur="0.3"/> that there is some kind of <pause dur="0.8"/> national identity created in opposition to the Spanish the Americans <pause dur="0.4"/> are the people who aren't Spanish <pause dur="1.0"/> so in other words <pause dur="0.4"/> the leaders of independence deliberately played on <pause dur="0.4"/> the differences <pause dur="0.4"/> the often <pause dur="0.4"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> entirely obvious differences between <pause dur="0.3"/> the Spanish and the Americans between <pause dur="0.5"/> the Spanish 
and the Indians <pause dur="0.4"/> between <pause dur="0.3"/> the Spanish and the Creoles <pause dur="0.8"/> as <pause dur="0.3"/> part of an attempt to <pause dur="0.3"/> create some sense <pause dur="0.3"/> of distinct identity <pause dur="0.3"/> # in <trunc>c</trunc> in in the sense of not being Spanish and thus <pause dur="0.5"/> the advocates of independence played very deliberately <pause dur="0.4"/> on <pause dur="0.9"/> the cruelty of the Spanish during the conquest this is what Bolívar's phrase from The Jamaica Letter of three-hundred years of tyranny <pause dur="0.3"/> for example <pause dur="0.3"/> fits in <pause dur="0.8"/> and they sought to distance themselves from all things <pause dur="0.3"/> Spanish <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> in other words the <trunc>re</trunc> attempt was made <pause dur="0.2"/> to convince the inhabitants of the Americas <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> they were united in not being Spanish <pause dur="0.3"/> that not being Spanish became the organizing principle around which these these new states were <pause dur="0.6"/> # were <trunc>s</trunc> were shaped during this early period <pause dur="1.2"/> now <pause dur="0.5"/> i think i want to conclude rather quickly at this stage i want to say a few words in conclusion 'cause there's something else that i want <pause dur="0.3"/> to do <pause dur="0.8"/> but what i'd like to do to conclude is i'd like to try to sum up i'd like to try to just remind you <pause dur="0.5"/> of what i said <pause dur="0.7"/> in 
this lecture <pause dur="1.2"/> i i mentioned at the very beginning a number of things <pause dur="0.2"/> that didn't change <pause dur="0.3"/> in the <pause dur="0.6"/> immediate aftermath of independence i talked about the <pause dur="0.7"/> fiscal and economic continuity <pause dur="0.5"/> of <pause dur="0.5"/> the period after independence however i then went on to remind you and to <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> alert you to the <pause dur="1.2"/> role of nationalism to the period of the nineteenth century as being a period of resurgent nationalism to the role of nationalism in creating <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> some kind of new <pause dur="0.3"/> sense of these new republics <pause dur="0.4"/> the period after the wars of independence <pause dur="0.4"/> may be defined i think <pause dur="0.4"/> as a period <pause dur="0.3"/> during which these new states these new republics sought to <pause dur="1.0"/> present themselves to define themselves to create themselves as nations <pause dur="0.5"/> after three centuries of <pause dur="0.5"/> colonialism the new <pause dur="0.3"/> Spanish American republics <pause dur="0.3"/> had to create <pause dur="0.2"/> new identities for themselves <pause dur="0.4"/> as republics to use this nice phrase of Benedict Anderson who i mentioned a moment ago <pause dur="0.5"/> # this was a time <pause dur="0.2"/> during which the political leaders <pause dur="0.7"/> of these new republics urged Americans <pause dur="0.3"/> to create 
imagined communities that's a phrase <pause dur="0.5"/> # that Benedict Anderson has used imagined communities to try to describe <pause dur="0.7"/> the process that i've been talking about to to try to <trunc>descr</trunc> describe <pause dur="0.6"/> the <pause dur="0.6"/> way in which nationalism isn't simply <pause dur="0.4"/> something founded in <pause dur="0.4"/> language or geography it's founded in a sense of <pause dur="0.9"/> shared community which was something that these leaders had to <pause dur="0.2"/> create they had to <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> build up <pause dur="0.3"/> out of <pause dur="1.2"/> a lack out of an absence of such sense <pause dur="1.0"/> now i've talked today a little bit about the attributes of nationalism i <trunc>s</trunc> talked about the way in which <pause dur="0.6"/> leaders tried to create a sense of national identity what we're going to look at <pause dur="0.2"/> for <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> and one might almost argue for the remainder of this year <pause dur="0.5"/> through all of next term we might argue <pause dur="0.3"/> is <pause dur="0.3"/> the <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>failure <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> of that early <pause dur="0.3"/> national project and the way in which <pause dur="0.8"/> politicians and <pause dur="0.2"/> inhabitants and citizens of these regions tried <pause dur="0.9"/> for throughout the rest of the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century to <pause dur="0.6"/> shape a nation <pause dur="1.2"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> really reflected 
its inhabitants that embraced <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> actual inhabitants of the region and the way in which <pause dur="1.1"/> politicians <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> proved unable <pause dur="0.7"/> to <pause dur="0.8"/> make their imagined nation <pause dur="0.6"/> coincide <pause dur="0.4"/> with the real nation <pause dur="0.4"/> was something that we'll look at <pause dur="0.3"/> for the remainder of the year <pause dur="0.2"/> that's going to be the project i think <pause dur="0.2"/> for the rest <pause dur="1.0"/> of the year <pause dur="0.6"/> now i want to stop my lecture there <pause dur="0.4"/> but i don't want you <pause dur="0.2"/> to go away yet <pause dur="0.5"/> for about ten more minutes because <pause dur="0.4"/> it is the time of year <pause dur="0.6"/> when one does course evaluation forms <pause dur="0.9"/> and i would be very grateful <pause dur="0.3"/> if you guys could do <pause dur="0.6"/> a course evaluation form <pause dur="0.6"/> for this course <pause dur="1.8"/> now i want to say a word about that there's been a new <pause dur="0.7"/> policy introduced in the History department i think it's a good policy <pause dur="0.6"/> on course evaluation forms and this is <pause dur="0.4"/> to encourage you to <pause dur="0.6"/> trust us that we don't just take these course evaluation forms and throw them in the bin which which we do not <pause dur="0.5"/> and i don't think anybody ever does <pause dur="0.2"/> but just to fill you with a sense of confidence that we pay attention to what you 
say on these course evaluation forms the new policy is <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> i make a digest <pause dur="0.4"/> of the principal points needing attention that are raised in these forms <pause dur="0.7"/> i will do that as soon as you've completed them <pause dur="0.3"/> and i will give this <trunc>for</trunc> this <pause dur="1.0"/> digest <pause dur="0.4"/> back to you at the beginning of next term <pause dur="0.5"/> with <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>c</trunc> your points the things you think you need attention and my suggested responses to them <pause dur="0.3"/> so then you can then <pause dur="0.8"/> respond to those <pause dur="0.4"/> so i want to make it very clear <pause dur="0.3"/> that this we really do pay attention to these and we we <pause dur="0.7"/> are always interested in your comments i certainly am <pause dur="0.5"/> at least <pause dur="0.3"/> i also would be particularly interested in having comments from those of you who are in the so-called large group <pause dur="0.6"/> 
the seminar group that # <pause dur="0.4"/> has about fifteen people in it <pause dur="0.6"/> that meets on <pause dur="0.4"/> Thursday mornings from whenever it is eleven <pause dur="1.0"/> i think is when it meets from eleven-thirty <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> if you have any particular comments about your feelings about being in this large group <pause dur="1.4"/> i particularly encourage you to write them down but we we indeed encourage all comments so here without further ado <pause dur="1.0"/><event desc="passes out handouts" iterated="n"/> are the forms <pause dur="10.6"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> what i think i'm going to do rather than just hover here while you complete them <pause dur="0.5"/> what i would ask you to do is when you've written <pause dur="0.3"/> whatever you would like to write <pause dur="0.4"/> can you leave them say on this desk <pause dur="0.9"/> and i will come back and collect them at three okay <pause dur="1.2"/> all right <pause dur="0.8"/> thank you very much
</u></body>
</text></TEI.2>

<pause dur=".{3}"/>

print re.findall(r'<pause dur=".{3}"/>([^<]+)<', text)