The famous Argentinian historian Patrick Lonswhose YouTube channel has more than 170,000 subscribers, reveals in a long interview little-known details about the role of international finance in the disintegration of the Spanish Empire and offers a renewed vision of traditionally reviled historical figures. “Independence from Spain was not a good deal for Latin American countries,” explains Lons, who likes to point out that “when the English invaded Buenos Aires in 1806, the gauchos attacked, shouting “Santiago and close Spain!”
In an analysis that challenges the conventional historical narrative, Lons highlights the traditionally criticized figure of Ferdinand VII, revealing his role in the defense of Hispanic economic interests: “He rejected the support of the Rothschilds. The Rothschild bank told him: “I will finance your deficit, but you entrust me with the management of mercury”. Ferdinand VII saw it coming […] and he said ‘that’s why they keep the mercury, then they’ll ask me for the money, then they’ll make change and they’ll keep the coin.'”
The historian emphasizes that this resistance to international financial interests had important consequences, since the Rothschilds only managed to penetrate Spain during the reign of Isabel II, “after the suspicious death of Alejandro Aguado”, the banker the richest in Europe and Ferdinand’s main financier. VII.
Concerning the current situation in Spain, Lons observes an “identity crisis” which contrasts with the Hispanic awakening in America. “There is a latent Spain about to emerge […] There is a deep Spain that will jump at some point,” he says, adding that “deep down we are already aware that the destiny of separated Latin America has not gone well for us.”
The historian proposes a bold vision for the future: the reunification of Spain and Portugal as a first step towards a renewed relationship with Latin America. “The great geopolitical project of Spain and Portugal should be the reunification […] “I would marry a Bourbon with a Braganza and I would propose a united monarchy with a king who would have much more power.”
The historian also discusses the connection between American independence and its global consequences: “When the Spanish empire in America was destroyed, Hispanic Americans were not the only ones to suffer. Our economy was complementary to that of China and India. As he explains, this vacuum was exploited by England, which “caused a famine of 30 million Hindus” by forcing the production of opium instead of grain.
Concerning the Spanish administration in America, Lons emphasizes the quality of the viceregal officials: “Spain had a very good school of administration […] “The viceroys who came to America were very good.” Compare this with the situation following independence, when “all of America entered into a revolutionary process” that was devastating for many territories.
“History is not a place of residence, it is a place of reflection,” explains Lons, emphasizing that the study of the past must serve to “generate the policy that a country must have.” In this sense, he proposes that Spain begins to “consider Americans of Hispanic origin as its compatriots” and that the civilizational unity that exists “from California to Antarctica” be recognized.
The historian concludes with an optimistic message about the future of Hispanicism: “In 92, the black legend won 1000 to 0. I think he continues to win, but he wins 10 to 4. And the penalty is in our favor.” This football metaphor illustrates his belief that recognition of the value of Hispanic heritage continues to gain ground on both sides of the Atlantic.
