Following along with what was discussed in week 11 of our class with “Los Desaparecidos.” This week we looked into concepts that occurred during and after the military dictatorship within the late 1970’s to early 1980’s. One aftermath that stayed in my mind was the Madres of the Plaza de Mayo. Mothers who were victims of loss for their children disappearing under the military dictatorship. Mothers of Argentina created an association with a white “pañuelo” wrapped over their heads along with peaceful protests in order to confront the military for what they’ve done to their children.

To have that kind of courage seems incredible for me, even more so how many mothers must’ve suffered when their sons and daughters randomly disappeared. It seems unbearable to me to think how much pain they have gone through which leads me to question why this association in being the first to challenge the military, why was it handled so peacefully when they have suffered so much in losing their children? Did they not want to have violence over what was lost? Was it better to convey their message through peaceful protests?

This week is probably going to be my favorite week for what we are researching and learning. The most background I have on this topic is through movies that have been produced representing areas of Latin America during “dirty wars.” In a summer camp at Quest University, we made research using movies as our tool on Latin American History and this was definitely a reoccurring topic that I have been intrigued with.

One of the readings mentioned for this week is “I Remember Julia” by Eric Carlson, which focuses on the possible future one of the many who were killed in Argentina during the time of the “dirty war.” There is so much that has been produced and published to portray such a dark time in Latin America, I really want to explore more of how each book, or movie displays their story.

What I need some more clarification on is what exactly causes the dirty war to happen? and How did this impact several regions of Latin America?

This week we looked at the definition to populism and how people through different sorts of technology projected their power. Populism is defined according to the definition given to us by our professor, the nation of the “people,” which was used to define the political events that was going on with Latin America during the time of the Great Depression. This chapter focuses on people such as Lazaro Céndanos, Gétulio Vangas, and Juan Péron and how they came to a sense of power using technology.

When we look at our use of technology today, we have a tendency to underestimate how much people have obtained a sense of power by devices. We are given the freedom of speech when we post something on the internet, we are given the ability to look up any information we want to just by typing it on the search bar at the top corner of your computer screen. Technology has given us so much power, we don’t recognize it. This chapter displays that while talking about how people have come into power using the technology developed like the radio to deliver their words to a wide set public. It caused a huge impact politically on the people.

My question is
With the power of technology giving people the freedom of speech, were there any severe consequences and if so what were they?

Could there have been another way besides the usage of technology to provide people with a sense of power?

Book “Feminist Writings from Ancient Times to the Modern World” – A Global Sourcebook and History. Tiffany K. Wayne (Editor). Pages 264 – 267

This book is focused on a collection of multiple different types of  writings by feminists from history. Tiffany K. Wayne tells the audience who the woman is, what she wrote about, and gives an analysis on the  piece of writing that each feminist wrote. This book relates to the video we are creating in class because of a feminist that we will be reviewing within the time period in Latin America. Tiffany k. Wayne presents “María Eugenia Echenique” a feminist during the time of Citizenship and Rights in the New Republic. What is very interesting that Tiffany K. Wayne does is compare between what María was declaring and Josefina Pelliza which is one of the major key point we will be highlighting in our video. The contrasting views on the roles of women through different points of views at the time, especially towards education.

Josefina Pelliza
http://www.autoresdeconcordia.com.ar/bioautor.php?idAutor=109

This is an anthology for Josefina Pelliza. This link presents who Josefina Pelliza is, her childhood and how she came to write poetry. Knowing a little more about her from the link brought a whole new perspective to me on who she is as a person since I disagreed completely on her response to María Eugenia Echenique’s “Brushstrokes.” It seemed odd to me how a woman could have a very contrasting opinion especially on education in comparison to María, thus it would contribute to our video in how people, especially women thought of themselves in the past and how that contributed to the time period of citizenship and rights in the New Republic. It would be a good insight to provide context on who Josefina is to discuss opposing views.

This week looked at start of the 20th century within the time of the cold war but also within that time period, it looked into the way Latin America is portrayed within propaganda and media. Focusing on Ariel Dorfman’s ” How to Read Donald Duck” he explained how such cartoon implement the American Imperial Project. I wanted to focus on this for this blog post as it really shocked me how after being explained the portrayal of Latin America within media.

As a kid, I was a fan of Disney. Donald Duck was always funny to watch. However, during class as we observed Donald Duck as he learned about South America, it became more uncomfortable to watch than amusing. For example, as Donald Duck was learning about the different countries in Latin America like Brazil, the character that came from that region had a huge emphasis on the stereotype of the country, from the way he talked, and the way he behaved or when Donald met his friend from Mexico, you were presented with the big “sombreros.” As kids, we don’t know any better, we just see a new character on the screen and find the entertainment within the show, but as you grow older you see how even in such innocent concepts like a Disney character, there contains so much content on how different regions around the world are represented that really impacts the way people see the world.

This week we looked at the crisis within the 1910’s to the 1920’s and how citizens responded to the crisis of this era. We looked at 4 different text types written by Rubén Darío, José Vasconcelos, José Mariátegui, and Emiliano Zapata.

What I found the most memorable of this week and Alexander Dawson highlights this in his book, is how there are a variety of texts, from a revolutionary declaration signed by indigenous people of Mexico to a poetic lament addressing the growing power of the United States within the region. Each has a different interpretation of a common crisis in a difficult era for Latin America. What is incredible to me is how it’s presented/ delivered to an audience that as Dawson highlights has a goal of making people ask questions and most importantly, provide some sort of possible solution to the crisis.

This week we learned through Alexander Dawson’s reading and his video about modernity. Modernity as he phrased is can be defined as “having a number of elements” such as innovation, emancipation, secularization, and universalism. We focused on modernity in Mexico where in society there were many groups of people who wanted to become modern but as Alexander Dawson states, when they meant modern, it was to look more like Western Europe.

For me what this week struck me the most was the how it was believed that what was “better” for a society, to modernize was the ideal image of Western Europe and what it took to achieve that level of modernization.

We also read through an interview between Creelman and Diaz, the president of Mexico. Creelman using positive diction when describing who Diaz is, idolizing who he is as a very hero like figure. It was portrayed with the focus being the positives of Diaz whereas there were several factors that were not mentioned that are negative that occurred during modernization. It was a interesting read, and I wonder why there is so much emphasis on Diaz’s positives, even as Creelman describes him physically.

The focus of this week was about the the process to freedom from slavery. Specifically targeted towards natives, blacks, and women. It was a difficult topic to read about as you learn about how during this time period colonial leaders wouldn’t do anything to solve such horrible discrimination to maintain themselves in power.

You learn so many cases around the world about slavery and discrimination but within Latin America, it doesn’t feel as popular though it is still a horrible time for many people. I believe we discussed this in class within the first few weeks how people do not tend to look back on the past, especially in the darkest of times and this might be one of those moments. Is that bad? I wouldn’t say it is bad, but it doesn’t shine the light as much on several important aspects of history in Latin America that are important to know and learn about.

Before this week’s assignment, I didn’t know about the Caudillos, or the Nation State, I wasn’t fully informed on what it was… however, as the week was over there was one thing I was noticing over the past couple of weeks.

A reoccurring theme that keeps coming up within these weeks is how there are two sides to a story. In this case its the portrayal of Antonio Lopez. Over the weeks we have exercised our minds in reading through different types of texts and analyzing beyond the one perspective the text provides. As we discuss further into the class, we realize that although we hear one side of the story, the glory, the “heroic like” story that inspired many, we don’t hear the other significant perspectives of the story that took place within that time.

Going beyond the reading, you will read and learn about different people who have made an impact in history, and each of those people are marked in history as either a hero, or a villain. You never will get the full true story of what happened in that moment in the past since it was a different story to all those who were present.

Although this post doesn’t focus very much on the content of the Caudillos vs. the Nation State, it made me question a lot of aspects marked down in history, focusing towards Latin America in how there isn’t much knowledge on for example the perspective of the Spanish vs. the perspective of the indigenous people within Latin America.

After reading through Simon Bolivar’s letter to Jamaica in response to Henry Cullen’s what I find incredible is how he manages to express his political and philosophical point of view on Latin America in comparison to Marti’s letter to the world, specifically targeting towards Cuba. Both have the same ideas on fighting and obtaining independence yet express their views on it in different ways.

Bolivar’s letter to Jamaica was for Spain declaring independence on Latin America, as he felt there were several reasons for Latin America to be free from control of Europe. As Bolivar expresses in his letter, he starts with explaining reasons as to why Latin America should have its independence, as he does he gives a metaphor explaining how its a scenario where Latin America has no control over their own region and its like they are “children” with no control. As he continues, he expresses his thoughts on the aftermath after Latin America gains their independence in how everyone in the region need to come together after they gain their independence.

Marti’s letter was expressed in a more poetic way which I believe benefits him to express his voice using pathos to the audience. He focuses on how not only Spain is interested in Cuba but the U.S is as well. His words were to purposely motivate people to come together to gain an independence and not be controlled by another region. In his writing as it is expressed in a more poetic way he uses a variety of metaphors throughout the text to fully explain his point of view.

Both texts had different diction overall however they all have a similar message on gaining independence whether it was written directly to those in control of the region or to the people themselves to motivate them to fight for independence, these two writers have a clear mind on what should be done and how they will maintain themselves as one region independently.