People of the Spanish and

Portuguese Colonies in America

(Theme 3 Part 3)

Kendra Lacasella

Novemeber 5th, 2011

History of Americas Online

Damianada Cunha

(Portuguese American)• She lived around 1780 and

died in 1831. (18th Century)• She lived in the stoney

plateau of Goias, and she was a Caiapo Indian.

• Baptized alongside her brother Mandel Da Cunha

• Distinguished communal leader in her late colonial aldeia

Damianada Cunha cont.

• She was then sent to Sao Jose where there had been an established house to “domestic” Indians from several tribes.

• She was a loyal supporter of the Church, from which she was baptized. And also interpreted it’s teachings.

• Soon after she passed away in 1831, the aldeias disintegrated.

Antonio de Gouveia

(Portuguese American)

• Born into a Christian home in 1528.

• Antonio de Gouveia became the Azorean priest.– His generation in Libson had become the “eighth

marvel” of the world.

– 1557-claimed to have studied Latin at the University of Coimba.

• Gouveia was a very curious man and had a great sense of wanderlust.

• He lived during the years of the 16th century, he spent his youth in the Azores.

Antonio de Gouveia cont.

• After he moved to Brazil, he was able to become prominent priest.– But shortly there after he was

questioned many times on “betrayal”, managed to keep his position.

• Sent back to Lisbon, without barely any trace of betrayal behind him.

Diego Vasicuio

(Spanish America)

• Diego Vasicuio was born into the mestizo reality of Spanish Peru around 1671

• He lived in the Village of Salamanca.

• While living in Salamanca he became the leader of a group of Peruvian Indians in the beliefs of Sorimana.

Diego Vasicuio cont.

• Diego Vasicuio lived a very long, incredible life.

• Vasicuio was over ninety years old when he appeared before Father de Prado to answer for the charges of heresy.

• Vasicuio did all he could to lead Father de Prado away from the accusations of the cult, and told him a story about a different one where witchcraft was involved.. But this didn’t work.

• This lead to the destruction of Sorimana.

FrancisoBaquero

(Spanish American)• FransicoBaquero, a man, lived in

the Spanish 18th century– And lived in Buenos Aires

• When he was just only twelve years old he entered the trade of shoe making as an apprentice.

• Baquero ran from poverty by having a store that made shoes, while he worked alongside his son.

FransicoBaquero

• Baquero made an effort the Guild of Negro and Mulatto Shoemakers, and was evaluated as a willingness to accept the elimination of slave artisans.

• Result of his efforts: Nonwhite shoemakers remained a dynamic element within the artisan community until the opening of Buenos Aires to British trade in 1809.– Then the turmoil of independence in 1810, disrupted

all the artisans.

Cristobal Becquer

(Spanish American)

• Cristobal Becquer was born in Lima in 1693, son of Captain Guillermo Becquer.

• His social group was Peruvian.

• Becquer embraced his life in the Church which lead to his occupation of priesthood.

Cristobal Bequer cont.

• One evening, September 28th

1714, in Lima was life changing for Bequer.

– His brother Pedro, his father, and him were implicated in a murder.

• The brothers were “accomplices” and soon after hearing this fled to the hills to hide away.

Enrico Martinez

(Spanish American)• Enrico Martinez was a printer, from

Seville Spain.• He lived during the 16th and 17th

centuries.• His desires were to see the new

world and find his fortunes in it. And with this desire he moved to Mexico

• But in this he faced immense struggles against the educate people in colonial societies.

Enrico Martinez cont.

• A large obstacle that Enrico had to face was trying to make a living without sacrificing his interests.

• In this, Martinez had no self confidence which lead to him not being able to succeed in the areas of writing and printing.

• He failed because of 4 reasons1. Lack of technical experience.2. Backwards engineering at the time3. Opposition of interest groups not wanting to

pay.4. Inability of political groups to make them do

so.