History of  Venezuela

Periods of the history of Venezuela 

The characterization and the delimitation of periods in the history of Venezuela  raise some specific problems, besides those characteristic of all periodificación intent. This problems have to see with: 1) the simultaneity of 
the processes of «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization»; 2) the historical lapse embraced by this processes; 3) the location of the same independence; 4) the location of the Republic of Colombia (Great call 
Colombia); 5) the delimitation of the contemporary history; and 6) the correspondence with the Eurus-western periodificación. To this list, not exhaustive, of problems specific historiográficos, it is necessary to add the 
methodological ones basic of the periodificación, concerning to: 1) the universality of the periodificación approaches; 2) the chronological cuts; and 3) the functionality of the periodificación outlines. 

It is necessary to prevent against the tendency to underestimate the importance of the problems 
raised by the periodificación of the history. They commit the same understanding of the history. Reducing them to an operation of courts, or of señalamientos, merely chronological, it harms the same essence of the historical processes, which should be understood as an intricate correlation of continuity and change. This basic understanding of the historical thing is the first one in suffering damage by reason of the intents or outlines of not well based, arbitrarily carried out or overvalued periodificación. Let us see, summarily, on what they consist the specific problems. The simultaneity of the processes of «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization» it is an essential condition of the global process, without the clear perception of which is impossible to 
capture the dynamics of the same one and mainly, to understand the respective papers carried out in him by the Europeans and for the natives, first, and for the American Creoles, then. The historical lapse embraced by the 
denominated processes of «discovery», «it conquers» and «colonization» it charges new significance when notices himself that, in rigor, they extend until the present, in areas of considerable extension, since the full occupation of 
the territory has not still been completed. From the point of view of the relacionamiento with the indigenous base, as well as from that of the significance of the paper carried out by the Creole population and for the 
resources generated in the own territory, the continuity of the global process is extremely developing, as it is also it for the understanding in current ways of that relacionamiento that  show scarce or any essential variation of 
those generated in the XVI century. The location of the considered precursory intents of the independence, has great importance from 2 points of view: in the first place, concerning the integral understanding of the colonial, included period the critical processes of the same one; in second place, from the point of view of the legitimation to ultranza of the independence that has taken to rake antecedent suppositions in times so early as the historical logic tolerates it. Comparable difficulties raise the location of the independence, because what puts at stake, this way, is the national vision of the history of Venezuela. To separate the colonial period of the national one taking as 
approach the declaration of independence, the constitution of the First Republic, or even the battle of Carabobo, leaves outlined the problem of the continuity of the colonial régime in portions of the territory (Choir and 
Maracaibo), as well as its reestablishment during comparatively very lingering periods (7 years in the county of Caracas). In other words, thinks about the problem of marking the initial landmark of the independent Republic.Difficulties also comparable it raises the location of the Republic of Colombia, 1821-1830. 
Does it owe considerársele it leaves of the Independence? Is it the full beginning of the independent Republic? Does it constitute, in yes, a period of the history of Venezuela, intermission between the colonial one and the national one? On the other hand, the delimitation of the contemporary history raises special difficulties, derived point of the school periodificación, for traced a lot of time of the French national history, like for the prejudiced 
identification of Juan Vicente Gómez long tyranny with one century XIX latifundista and caudillesco. Lastly, they should take in consideration the difficulties outlined by the correspondence between the periodificación of the 
history of Venezuela and the Eurus-western one, or if one wants in other terms: for the location of the process historical Venezuelan in the supposedly universal outline generated by the European historiography. With the statement enters before to consider the basic methodological problem of the periodificación, and in the first place its universality. To this respect, León E. Halkin recommends that: «Let us don't forget that the classic divisions of the history, be San Agustín's six times or of the four ages of Hegel, they are not applied but to the general history of the Mediterranean and of West. They have not still imagined at the same time valid divisions for the art and for the institutions, for China, Mexico, Russia and France.

 
The usual divisions have been work of European; they are made for European. For it same it diminishes their importance. Their accuracy is not much bigger, even for the single Europe». It is not smaller the difficulty outlined by the chronological cuts, not already from the point of view of the continuity and the discontinuity of the history, in the sense of the imbricación of the processes, but from the point of view of the correlation of the diverse historical times that  are contemporary in a given moment. In sum, enough indications as to conclude, as for the significance of the periodificación that this constitutes a file or analytic resource of delicate use, in the sense that their employment should go accompanied by the preventions of the case. Among these they deserve to be underlined two: in the first place, the periodificación is not never innocua; in second place, only a white, explicit and critical foundation criteriológica makes useful the employment of a periodificación outline. Approaches continued in the periodificación of the history of Venezuela Before making a critical presentation of the periodificación outlines 
applied to the history of Venezuela, it is convenient to try to sometimes identify the approaches that have served them as foundation, in explicit form, the more than the times in implicit form. In this respect it is necessary to 
remark that the critical historiográfica allows to identify this approaches, even when the author of the outline has not had conscience of his explanation. 

This last one is the case of the generality of the Venezuelan historians, and it is the confirmation of this fact one of the foundations that has allowed to point out the lack of methodological elaboration as one of the characteristics 
of the Venezuelan historiography. 
It seems possible to identify basic approaches of periodificación of the history of Venezuela: 1) the directly transferred of the history «universal» Eurus-western; 2) the corresponding to the perspective of the national history; 3) the specific one or ad hoc; 4) the chronological one; 5) the characteristic of the contemporary time; and 6) the historical one integral. The outlines of directly transferred periodificación of the history «universal» 
Eurus-western they reveal their incongruity that surprises to the critical spirit their lingering validity, so easily of not being because after her the irredeemable aspiration of the Creole underlies to link its history with that of the or the 
European metropolises. The base of this adjournment is the sequence Edad Antigua, Half Age, Modern Age, Contemporary Age, for which it becomes mandatory to find equivalent in the process historical Venezuelan, and that for the same thing it commits the reconciliation among the long period in which registers the Eurus-western history and the short period in which registers the history of the Creole society, although to overcome that obstacle throws hand of the aboriginal past, transforming it into the Edad Antigua or in the Prehistory, according to the cases of the evolution of the Creole society. The periodificación outline based on the concept of national history corresponds to a moment of the history of the Venezuelan historiography, lingering until the 
present, in which the primordial objective was not to form knowledge but promoting the national project. In consequence, the formulation of the same one became the clearest indication that with him a new period began and, what is more, regarding which all that happened previously became an antecedent. Of 
there the division in colonial period and national period. It is opportune to point out that although it is been in general very closing when speaking of period or colonial history, they have not lacked well historians that refute 
this denomination, be for the purpose of raking in him clear indications of the nationality (they are mentioned Carlos' III reformations then), well be to differentiate the relationship with the Spanish metropolis of the modern 
imperialistic linking (it is used in this case the denomination history or provincial period, and it is alleged that the term colony was outlawed specifically by the metropolis). In the concerning thing to the national period, 
it can be pointed out that this denomination is not always used, but rather it usually uses as synonym the one of «republic», although making this doesn't bear the acceptance of the denomination «period monarchist» for the colonial one, since the same conception of the national history has been taken to the end 
of denying authenticity to the monarchic past. It is sought to affirm, in this way that the Venezuelan society was never really monarchic. 

The periodificación outlines based on specific approaches or ad hoc are referred to moments or 
processes characteristic of the historical evolution of Venezuela. They present the difficulty that they reduce the possibilities of understanding from the historical processes when detaching them of the categories of the 
European universal history. The use of these periodificación approaches presupposes the specificity, or in any event a certain degree of her, of the historical evolution of the Venezuelan Creole society. To this respect it is 
necessary to formulate some considerations. 
In the first place, «...hablar of a historical process specifically Venezuelan would be only possible if the very doubtful validity of that specificity was hidden, because for its historical development, Venezuela (that is to say the 
implanted society or Creole) inmersa has been and in permanent linking, regarding the European-western historical development...» In second place, «...sustraer to Venezuela of the square of the history universal European would 
mean to adopt a limited perspective, and until false that would prevent to understand the reality historical Venezuelan when whisking away this way the interaction, frequently decisive, with the universal thing defined...» In third place, «...si leaves of the acceptance of the bond with the European universal history, but without incurring in the simplismo of seeking <to reproduce it> in every period, the following periodificación could maybe be admitted: Prehistory 
(until the discovery, expert in sense beats); Modern Age (whose limit would depend of the approach that adopts in this respect you); and Contemporary Age (under equal conditions). But it won't be easy, for many historians, to give up a luck of Venezuelan feudalism without Half Age...» In fourth place, it seems licit to think that «...en that universal mark would have space the characterizations and periodificaciones inspired by the specific thing American, as well as in the periodificación universal European they fit regional and even national shades. 
The error would be in transferring the whole European universal periodificación mechanically...» it is Maybe necessary to have present that the history of the society implanted Venezuelan is unwrapped in the environment of the European Modern Age, but under the conditions of America. 
The periodificación outlines based on the chronological approach hide, with their apparent simplicity, all an intricate one problematic methodological that you can express as the frequent inadequacy between the historical time and the chronological time. Indeed, to distribute the history in centuries and in years it outlines difficult problems as for the continuity of the historical processes, but also as for the significance characteristic of each one of the 
lapses. For example, the imbricación has already been pointed out between the colonial period and the national one, but it would also be necessary to adduce that the century XVII Venezuelan is caught among a vast and dense XVI century, the one which not yet has concluded in almost a third part of the Venezuelan 
territory, and a not less dense XVIII century, which survives fragmentarily in some agricultural exploitations and in the sequels of the slavery. Of course, it continues him a larguísimo XIX century that some authors prolong until the 
decade of 1940. The situation is committed than the years «holes». Obviously it will be been able to object that such a situation only expressed the inadequacy of the available historical knowledge, or their excessive subjection 
to certain concepts of the historical thing. This way, for the warlike historiography the years of peace would be years without history. The evident inadequacy of the strictly chronological periodificación applied to the history 
universal European induced to adopt a periodificación in times, which were defined on the base of characteristic and not of chronological landmarks. The periodificación of the history of Venezuela according to the national approach would be, probably, its equivalent one. Also the characterization and delimitation of the contemporary time of the history of Venezuela raises difficulties, some referred to the process Venezuelan sociohistórico, others referred to the history «universal» Eurus-western. 

The main source of difficulties for the delimitation is constituted by the historical significance of those almost Juan Vicente Gómez government's 3 decades, and in turn, this significance is linked with the deep trauma caused by that fact in the intellectual conscience of the Venezuelans. They are 2 the main attitudes: the one of those who look for to oppress that historical period denying him all projection in the contemporary modernity, and for they already 
wrap up it with the commented stereotyped vision of the XIX century; and the one of those who look for mainly to mark the difference with the subsequent period, and for it doesn't have enough them to it with identifying this last one with the democracy but rather they also make it with the XX century. In the bottom, it is the same approach that took