From this week reading,I just realiced that there are many authoritarian governments in Latin America. How is it possible that they have done that? I am just saying this because even when the government killed those people they also killed the women that were complaining, mentioning that those took actions against the government, but in a peaceful way. I need to say that something similar happened in Mexico not long time ago. In Mexico, they killed 43 students because they were protesting against the local goverment, but not in a peaceful way. But even though, how is it possible that the government kill citizens? And much more important, the parents of those young students have been protestint just to know the real reason of their murders and they are not receiving any response… so this just bring me to one point, governments in Latin Americs do not care about its citizens after they get power. This can be related to the concept of delegaty democracy, which is that rulers are entitled to gover as they fit… this means that rulers from these kind of democracies believe that they can do whatever they want because people chose them but thats totally false in my opinion. From the reading, it is not possible that governments could be that repressive when people just want a reason and explication of different kind of facts and nothing more. In conclusion, governments in Latin America have been characterized not only by being democratic governments but also authoritarian regimes.

From these week readings, I just realised that people from Peru in those times used to have so many problems such as corruption, poverty and violence and because of that is that people had lots of politicians who were very corrupt and authoritarian like Fujimori.

It is true that Fujimori was a true leader because the way that he used to convince people was amazing, I think that he was a populist but also an authoritarian leader who took the advantage of the bad situation of the country to take power. Also, it is important to say that when people are desperate and have many troubles, they just want to choose someone with the perfect solution, no matter what it would take and in this case not only the economic situation used to be the problem but also the violence through guerrillas was a very important issue in those years.

I was very curious about “Sendero Luminoso, I used to think that this group was a good one but this lecture showed me the opposite. This movement’s goal was to defeat the institutions such as the congress and courts of Peru, in order to replace the government for a regime controlled by peasants. I think that these peasants are seen as terrorists because they are just provoking deaths through violence, so in consequence instability for Peruvians governments.

I really liked two documents of this reading: Mario Vargas Llosa “The Massacre” published on July 31 in 1983 and Fujimori’s Declaration of the Autogolpe on 5th of April in 1992. The first one was very intriguing because for me, it looks like the government and the military were accusing the peasants for murdering the journalists and more important, that the president in those times just wanted to hide the truth and kill who ever he needed to avoid problems. This is very similar to what happened in “Mexico’s Tlatelolco Massacre of 1968” because students were killed by the military and the government did everything they could to hide the truth from the population.

On the other hand, about Fujimori’s document I need to say that this leader was not only an authoritarian leader but also a populist because he took advantage of the situation of the country by promising everything to citizens of Peru, specially solving the problem of violence. I need to say what happened in Peru was not only Fujimori’s fault, people were also guilty because they approved that Fujimori should take control of Institutions like Congress and the judiciary, and those actions resulted very dangerous for the country because a new start of repression had just began.

Raat, W. Dirk. 1982. Mexico, from independence to revolution, 1810-1910. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

In my first source, I’m talking more about what were the main causes of Independence in Mexico. The independence of Mexico started in because Mexicans were very angry before those years, people from Spain treated them in such a bad way, Spanish people didn’t respect the economic and social rights of the people of Mexico, it was well known that almost 300,000 people were dying in Mexico because they didn’t have anything to eat and the people who used to control the country were from Spain, so Mexicans blamed them for their economic situation, and I totally agree with that. The movement started before planned by the Mexican priest and leader Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla which I am going to talk more about him on my second source. It is important to say that Hidalgo was considered as a true leader in front of the peasants and also people used to love him (which is a very weird thing in Latin America, people usually do not admire politicians). I personally admire him because even when he had a good economic position he gave everything for his people.

Van Young, Eric. 2001. The other rebellion: Popular violence, ideology, and the Mexican struggle for independence, 1810-1821. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press

In my second source, I’m focusing on who was Miguel Hidalgo y Castilla , he is well known as being the leader of the Mexican War of Independence. I need to mention that he was a priest and the first person who started the movement of independence in Mexico, with Allende, Morelos and other Mexican leaders. He used to control the military and every peasant in Mexico, but it was interesting to see how this Mexican movement was not totally successful because many Mexican leaders died in those years, even Miguel Hidalgo, who was captured and then killed by the opposition (Spanish leaders). It is also interesting to see how Hidalgo started this movement, carrying a banner with the image of the Virgen de Guadalupe, he used to mix religion and military things in his own life and in my opinion, that’s why people from Mexico admire so much the Catholicism and especially “La Virgen de Guadalupe”. It is important to say that Miguel Hidalgo was not the only figure of the Independence in Mexico but I need to say that he is considered as the “Father of the Independence” because he started the movement (1810-1821).

This text was very interesting to me, I have just written for my other class an essay about “the Kirchner”, I know that it is a very different situation in politics but it has the similarity that both of couples are interested in politics.

First of all, I think that Maria Eva Duarte de Peron was using her way to speak to attract the mass, in a few words, the people from Argentina. That’s why the author make the comparison with the populist leaders because in both situations, they take advantage by using the public to get more popularity. It is quite difficult to know if you can call someone “a populist” because one thing of the lecture that I do not agree is that at least Lazaro Cardenas, the ex president of Mexico was not that much a populist, I think he had similarities but he achieved more than the expected.

I need to mention that the program “Hora do Brazil” in Varga’s regime was quite interesting, it reminds me of a program that Hugo Chavez had when he was the president of Venezuela, I think that this is a strategy in politics because it is very effective to mix the technology, in this case a tv program to influence people’s beliefs, radio was also a very useful strategy.

On the other hand, Juan Peron was a very good leader because he was different from other political leaders, he knew how to get a good relation with the worker class, not only by talking and making agreements with the elite, like the common leaders that we have in many countries these days.

From the document “Peronists Will Head Argentine Ticket”, it seems to me that 2 persons ruling a country could be not that good for the nation, I think that in most cases is better to give the opportunity to other people, so that people could be an important part of the government. In addition to, I think Eva Peron’s final response was quite interesting, it shows how a woman is not deciding to run the elections for a simple purpose: to help her husband to achieve his goals but more importantly to not affect the interests of the country. I think in these days we need more people who loves its country in this way because most of the politicians just care about getting more power and they are not thinking on how do they can benefit the majority.

Firstly, I want to say that the most interesting part from the lecture at least in my opinion was the important influence that the United States of America had in many countries from Latin American. I think their influence started because they want to control everything, not only the economic aspects but also political and social ones. I need to say that it seems to me, that the U.S. wanted to be seen as a strong country like Spain, if we know a little bit of history of Spain, they wanted to control everything and they had a very important influence in Latin American, even in my country.

I need to mention that many countries from Latin American did not want the United States, this was because people from countries like Nicaragua knew what happened to Mexico in the 19th century when they bought Texas and other territories because Mexico didn’t have other choice so they knew that if they wanted to come to their countries, it will probably happen the same thing. Thats why I think they didn’t want the expansionism of this powerful country.

I was also very intrigued with Alaska, I didn’t know that this territory was part of Russia, now I know why the Russians have so many differences with the americans, probably this fact was an important one, similar to what happened in Mexico with Texas and other territories.

On the other hand, I need to say that for Mexico, United States was also very helpful to our government because they helped us to build part of our economy, the perfect example was the cigarettes where both countries were helping each other to gain more money and for me this was very good because it is a way to have benefits without affecting other countries.

From the Manifesto Politico written by Sandino, I think that it was a very important fight between patriotic people and invaders , local people was very afraid of these invaders because they knew that it will be difficult to stop them after they get there and it was totally true.

Ultimately, it is evident that United States of America in these days is influencing many countries of Latin America, we can see that in Mexico with the NAFTA and Cuba with all these new technology and businesses that are finally coming to this new country.

Firstly, I need to say that people from Mexico used to think that Porfirio Diaz wasn’t a good person, he did know how to build a country talking about economy but he never treated Mexican people as true citizens. In those times, the economy was very stable because of the new agricultural wealth, industry and mines but at one point people were affected by repressions, poverty, unemployment, lack of liberty, among many others.

I also think that oligarchy in this lecture is one of the most important concepts to identify the regime of Porfirio Diaz because at that time just a few people, specifically the wealth and the powerful used to control the economy, politics, business and every type of privilege. In addition to, from my philosophy class I know that Milton Friedman’s idea match perfectly with Porfirio Diaz because this economist used to mention that Latin American countries just care about making profit and that you don’t have to care about the people who is suffering from this kind of autocratic or oligarchy regimes, like the “Porfiriato”.

Moreover, one of the most impressive achievements with Porfirio Diaz and his dictatorship was the creation of so many railroads which helped to increase the economy in different ways, I think thats one of many things that Mexicans know about this leader and hero. For example, foreign investors were a very important part of the economy for Mexico, thanks to them is that railroads, telegraphs and weapons started to gain power in the market.

It is true that this kind of oligarchy criticise democracy because they used to say that people were not ready to exercise their rights and even more important to have a proper order, but in my opinion it is definitely obvious that the government wanted to control everything, thats why the bureaucracy did not want people to get involve in these matters. Additionally, the rich people do not care about poor people they just wanted a real modernisation for Mexico, no matter if people were suffering.

Another important thing was the photography, I need to mention that this sign was used for many different things like showing traditional dresses, gender norms, racial types, slaves, among many others. But everything was related to modernisation. I just can infer that Latin American countries wanted to show their independence, innovation, imagination, etc. to other countries.

From the document “Porfirio Diaz, hero of the americas” published by James Creelman, I have to say that it was impressive the way that this interviewer described Porfirio Diaz because it makes me feel that americans and other people saw this dictatorship as true hero and good image for Mexico, and of course he was that for the economy in general but not for the poor people. Ultimately, I have to mention that when people start to have too much power they get crazy and sometimes they lose a true sense of reality and the perfect example is with Porfirio Diaz when he used to thought that he was useful to many citizens from Mexico and that was his main reason for not leaving the presidency, he though that Mexicans were not self sufficient by their own.

From what I just read, I found very intriguing some aspects of the reading like for example, I think women rights were not included in those years because the main problem was between race and it was not focused at all in gender. In addition to, you can infer that white people do not wanted to lose power thats why they did not recognise other people’s rights, in this case “the slaves”.

Some people can ask themselves this question, What was the main reason that white people do not wanted to recognise these rights? It was very obvious, slavery in those times was very profitable and also necessary for industrialisation so that means if these people wanted to keep their power they needed to have these people under their command.

I also think that independence wasn’t at all the only aspect to recognise freedom, it recognises freedom from colonial rules but not at all, for example, we can say that Mexico was finally free after the revolution because when Porfirio Diaz was ruling the country many people were working based on terrible schedules to maintain the economy of the country but more important because Diaz was a dictator and people do not have a choice and once again, Mexicans were working like slaves to keep the industrialisation with the general objective of making profit.

On the other hand, I think slave owners or “The wealthy” did not allow their slaves to be merchants nor owners of pets because they didn’t want to have a kind of relation with their workers, the status of powerful people was very important to them.

From the document of “Programa del Partido Independiente de Color” we can infer that people in general no matter colour or race wanted to participate in political matters like voting and being voted by the population of the country in this case Cuba. I also noticed that in those days opportunities were not available for communities in general because they were basically demanding first needs like going to school, more justice for everyone through courts and not only for the rich, free universities, among many others.

From the document of “El manifesto Santa Rita de Casia y San Lázaro”, religion was the most important thing in those communities and also their main fundamental point was that we were all equals in God’s eyes. In addition to, I think they wrote this document for one and only main purpose, to show the rich people that wealthy is not everything in their lives and if they were keeping those practices they will be punished by God.

From what I read I just feel that many people who is reading this kind of lecture will probably think that Antonio Lopez De Santa Anna was a very good man and someone who did everything for Mexico but I do not think in that way. When I was taking history courses in my country they told us that Santa Anna was a traitor, a person who betrayed Mexico and its people but the most important thing is when he sold a big part of Mexico to the United States of America which was terrible.

On the other hand, I think the caudillos were a very important part of our history at least in Latin America, specially in countries like Bolivia, Chile, Peru, Mexico, among others. They used to be very powerful and charismatic leaders I mean they were always convincing people that the actual leaders and governors were very corrupt so that they could be in power. Caudillos also took advantages of different things like civil wars, economic issues, poverty, famine, ineffective political parties but specially from the independence movements.

Caudillos were characterised for being true leaders who usually made lots of promises to its people but more important they were seen as a hope to their citizens. The strategy which they used to gain power was very useful in those times. It consisted of gathering lots of people specially soldiers from the military forces and also support from the rich who live in towns or villages to overthrown the person who was ruling in that time so that someone else in this case the caudillo could be the next governor or the local ruler.

Nowadays, many politicians from countries in Latin America have same characteristics as the caudillos because when elections are really close they start to criticise the actual government so that they could gain advantage and popularity but the most important thing here is to destabilise the actual leader.

Ultimately, the document which was written by Esteban Echeverria was very interesting because you can see the difference between the real barbarians and the unitarians. Barbarians were more identified as the church and government, they were unfair to its people because when they wrote the rule that says “nobody can eat this type of meal” they did not respect that at all. In addition to, unitarians did not have too many choices so they just could follow these kind of rules or having worse consequences like the poor boy who died in this event.

First of all, I enjoyed very much the readings of this week because I think politicians like Bolivar and also Hugo Chavez are very important if you want to understand what it is happening in South America in this precisely moment. I need to say that Bolivar was a great hero to me, he was loyal to south american people and of course he never gave up to anything in spite of betrayals. He was also a very smart person because he knew lots of things from many countries especially from the continents like North America and Europe, the first was the most important to him because he was always saying that countries from South America should follow the U.S. The most important things that I personally admire from Simon Bolivar were that he was a true leader, a believer in democracy and that he always wanted to help the poor and slaves.

On the other hand, I will talk about the main differences between Hugo Chavez and Simon Bolivar I think these ideas are a little bit critical but also necessary to understand these texts. Firstly, Simon Bolivar used to admired the U.S. while Hugo Chavez was always critiquing and fighting with politicians from this country especially with George W. Bush (now that I can remember). Secondly, Chavez was a loyal and true follower of Simon Bolivar he used to mention him in every speech when he was speaking to people from Venezuela. A very important one is that Simon Bolivar was in favour of democracy and neoliberalism but if we compare things when Chavez was president of Venezuela he admired communist countries and also an important critical of this neoliberalism that has characterised many different countries but especially the United States of America.

Ultimately, I think when Chavez was the president of Venezuela in those many many years he used to talk about Simon Bolivar a lot because he knew that people from South America admire this true leader and he wanted to compare himself to Bolivar for this main reason but also because he wanted to be popular in front of the poor saying that he was going to release the people from bad and evil governments so practically he used this venezuelan and military leader to improve his image and rule Venezuelan country for many years (he achieved his goals).