The reading this week focused on the transition to ‘modernity’ in Latin America during the 19th and early 20th Century. Export and foreign investment were the main catalysts of economic growth throughout Latin America, and this led to an uneven distribution of wealth, with only a few elites in each country seeing a large majority of the money. Also, the system that was set up between Latin American countries and the US and Western European countries, where Latin America would export raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods, only saw the gap to these rich nations grow (for the most part).

I thought the point that was brought up early on was an important one, that, “political stability is almost always stability in someone’s interest”. So as stability at the national level in these countries grew, this allowed for the government to come in and start controlling local affairs, grabbing up land and such to be used to boost the export economy. This, obviously, was viewed negatively by the people that were seeing their property and traditions taken away, but at the same time this allowed for the economic growth of the country as a whole. The Latin American elites believed that there needed to be “order” for “progress”, but also that the people were not ready for democracy, that their ways were too “backwards”, and so order must be forced upon them. All of this just shows that there is always at least two views to the same story.

An interesting subplot to all of this, I thought, was the role of women during this period, and how their place in Latin American society changed and evolved. Many women were relegated to the domestic sphere, but at the same time they were becoming increasingly literate, and so began agitating for increased women’s rights and freedoms, something that is inspiring to hear. Also, many women were actually employed, some as maids and laundresses, some as prostitutes, but some also as part of the industrial workforce. This was somewhat surprising to hear, as it seems quite progressive for the time. The whole thing about factory owners looking to protect the “virtue” of their female employees in the hopes of fending off unions I found to be pretty bizarre, and it was good to hear that many women, just like their male counterparts, still went on strike and such in the hopes of getting increased pay, work conditions, etc.

Finally, I found the interview between Creelman and Diaz to be just plain weird, and I wonder as to what Creelman’s motivations were. He makes constant flowery compliments of not only Diaz’s personality and convictions, but also of his physical appearance. He talks about Diaz as though he is almost a saint, as if he is the most successful and loved president of all time, something we all know he is far from.