The introduction to this text starts our depicting two different perspectives and lifestyles within the same city, D.F. (or, Mexico City). I very much liked Dawson’s description of “fragmentary consciousness” that exists within D.F., but could really be more largely applied to any city; the act of being conscious only of one’s own lifestyle with the components that are easy to swallow, only viewing the world through a carefully formed lens that makes daily life in the city viable. Dawson makes it clear that this fragmentary consciousness occurs both among the rich and among the poor, and is more of a coping mechanism than anything else. I thought that this idea of fragmentary consciousness would be important in the study of Latin America being as there are many different “worlds” lived within this one geographic region, but I also found it reassuring that from the bat Dawson acknowledged that there existed both the poorest and the richest of people within Mexico City, disbanding a common stereotype that Mexico as a country is poor and dirty.
Though I understood that Dawson was trying to communicate that in describing Latin America there has been the production of almost fabricated, or at least very generalized or stereotyped narratives, I was confused about how this was any different from any other collected history of peoples. Perhaps all collective histories involve generalization to a certain extent, and are flawed? For example, in my learning of Japanese history there was a subtle undertone of the entire country being esoteric and isolationist, (which based on its policies, it was at least in the 18th and 19th centuries). But maybe that’s just it- there are no policies or data or facts to support the narratives of Latin America, a region that is both very large and very diverse, and includes a multitude of nationalities.
A good point that Dawson made, a beautiful point really, was that there is a sameness in all children, but that all individuals cannot be fit into the same box with a common story. This is reinforced in the video in that is important to distinguish that Latin America is 30 different countries, made up of many histories, and specific stories cannot be labeled as “the” Latin American past. Again, this makes sense to me, but the problem I have with it is that it seems like NO history of any group of peoples should be summarized with simple, specific stories. Is Dawson trying to say that Latin America is not a “group of peoples” whatsoever? Speaking of, the Calle 13 song made me cry, what a beautiful piece of artwork. Maybe I should talk more about why it was beautiful but for now I’ll just say it was great.
Lastly, I found the three “ideas” of Latin America to be very interesting. Indeed, consciously or not, I had attended to each of these ideas…the romantic idea of Latin America, the views of conflict, lawlessness, and violence, as well as the ancient views of Latin America’ s deep past. What I found both fascinating and very sad was that in none of these depictions were the ideas of education or linguistics found. There was no “common idea” of an educated, intelligent Latin America, which I know exists just as much as a romantic or lawless Latin America does.
I am excited to continue the reading of this text as well as watching more videos. Also, I’ve been listening to a ton of Calle 13.
