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.