To me, these independence narratives felt as if though some of them weren’t written in the 18th or 19th century but instead yesterday. In the introduction to the book, it mentions Polanco and Ecatepec which are in my opinion great ways to represent Latin America nowadays. Criollos never really lost power in most Latin American countries, they are still the ones with the money and the power and the heritage to take high positions in government. Being from one of the smallest countries in Latin America, El Salvador, this power that criollos have is surely exacerbated to higher degrees than in most of the region. It’s always the same families ruling and it’s getting to a point where the less fortunate people are getting extremely upset.
I think it’s time for Latin countries to get the next Simon Bolivar, someone who will unite everyone and make us see past our differences. Like Dawson said, there are lots of tensions between countries (Brazil & Argentina, Venezuela & Colombia, etc.) and it might get to the point where the countries end up hating each other, just like Spaniards and Americans, “It would be easier to have the two continents meet than to reconcile the spirits of the two countries. ”
It’s hard for me to think of these events as isolated events when I can see that some of those problems still exist; I imagine that it’s a lot easier for Canadians, Europeans and Asians to think of these narratives as things of the past. I can still imagine a world where an elite rule over the poor; I grew up in that world. Chavez like Dawson mentioned, was a big leader in Latin America, but the thing that bothered me about Chavez was that you had to either be with him or against him; political ideology hasn’t evolved past left and right wing in my country and it feels as if we’ve gone back to before September 15th 1821 when we signed the declaration of independence. We may be a sovereign nation but we did not claim independence over the racial, social and economical injustices that characterized “dependent” America.
Really interesting to get a sense of the perspective someone who has been so close to the situation in question has. As an “outsider”, I don’t really know what independence means to a citizen of Guatemala, what level or version of freedom they actually have. History book writers simplify events and ideas, and many of those directly involved and impacted by the history itself are left unrepresented and frustrated.
Okay, so I’m all for a united Latin America. However, I am weary of it because in constructing a metageography narratives need to constructed and individuals need to be idolized in order to supersede individual traditions and beliefs. This is problematic because it is an attempt to erase the past and individual heritage (similar to the “melting pot”). I also believe it isn’t a solution. Having everyone identify as Latin American will not erase class, racial and gender divides. These are structural! More has to be done with legal policies and education at a poststructural level than adding yet another layer of identity in which Othering is the process in which it is created.
I find your point of view extremely interesting. You raise some very valid points, as Canadian who has grown up in Canada, it is easier to image all these events as the past. Were as I can understand how someone who grew up in Latin America, might feel that certain issues have actually yet to be resolved. The various times I have visited Latin America I was able to witness a society/community, were the wealth/elite still do rule over the poor. I believe history suggests that the past has changed, although in some cases things may remain the same or similar to how they were in pervious years.
I agree with Michelle’s comment. I think in modern society, it’s not practical to achieve unity and eliminate injustice by idolizing one person, because it’s simply more problematic. You yourself realize one of the problems, which is you either take his side or the opposite, with little freedom for personal opinions. The economical, racial, and gender diversions are innate for every society, and instead of covering these diversions with one layer of shared identity, it’s the legislation that can gradually work towards a less injustice society.