Latin America

Towards an Uncertain Future

Week 13, , , , , , , , , Leave a comment

 

After reading this week’s last chapter, I got the feeling that there is a bit of anxiety when it comes to predicting the future of an entire region, especially one so volatile like Latin America. If we know something about current international politics, and specifically of the United States, is that this powerful nation does not hold the same dominance over other regions like it used to do. Currently, other nations such as China have allied internationally with most Latin American nations to create new bilateral commercial agreements which could solve the necessity of having to negotiate deals with only one partner. The reading also talks about how ready Latin American elites were against the economic meltdowns that shocked the developed north, such it was the economic downturn of 2008. Such preparations were based on the willing of these elites and more importantly of daily citizens, to understand that power could come from their own willing to act. By being politically vocal, protesting in public and by revolting, many Latin Americans were able to change the face and outlook of their nations. Another big reason why Latin America was ready to withstand economic hardship, when other countries were not, was that Latin America has placed itself as a commodity export region which in turn allowed it to enjoy an economic boom.

Many Latin American countries incorporated into their national politics, foreign govern policies in hopes of achieving better economic prosperity. In the early 1970’s, many Latin American right-wind countries wanted to stablish the ‘Washington Consensus’, an economic model promoted by the IMF and the Wold Bank, for the privatization, deregulation, and opening of local markets to foreign investors. By 1973, almost all countries in Latin America had drifted to the right given that most of their commodity prices (coffee, maize, potato, etc.) had fallen and interest rates gone up. Latin America during the 1990’s had a political and economic period called: the ‘lost decade’, where inflation was so high (1000 %) and unemployment rates were greater than 40%. It was at this moment that many rich people, including the elites in Latin America, ‘exited’ their respective nations in order to save their financial future. But what happened to poor people who could not leave that and had to face reality at home? ‘Campesinos’ (peasants), poor people everywhere, and particularly indigenous people, were unable to farm or work in their normal habitats and were obliged to ‘exit’ the countryside and move into the slams of the big cities. There they sold their labour as a means of earning wages. In countries such as Colombia and Peru, where armed conflict was at its most intensive pick, many of these peasants had to settle in very inhuman communal conditions.

 

We also have other political models in Latin America fomented by presidents such as Hugo Chavez (Venezuela), Morales (Bolivia), and the Kirchners (Argentina), who became really good political allies and formed what is called the ‘pink wave’. Chavez with is capacity to petro- help their fellow friends, while undermining and attacking his enemies, could only be sustained for a while within the political arena of the country. When people saw that his policies did not help them directly, they started to lose patience. I think all this is just a political game that some presidents in Latin America play in order to accumulate and perpetuate their power. However, people are not stupid and one way or another they are going to seek to remove those political figures that do not render the economic, political, and social benefits that promise a more egalitarian society where a more fair state listens to what they have to say.

Week Twelve: “Speaking Truth to Power”

Week Twelve, , , , , , , View all 2 comments

This week’s reading was centered on the idea that Latin American States are seeing as not strong enough to maintain social order, collect taxes, or even maintain the normal level or political stability which is expected of them. In contrast, strong states are considered robust because they rely relatively little on violence and more on explicit deal-making to maintain order and to get things done. It was because of such weak leadership and the lack of political stability that many Latin American countries advanced towards militarized regimes. Governments such as the Argentine, Chilean, Guatemalan, and Salvadorian, were able to inflict terror upon their citizens and incorporate dehumanizing techniques such as coercion, terror and kidnapping which came from the cold war period. On the other hand, their victims, powerless, found in international allies a much strong support than what they could ever get at home. They also found a language which superseded the one the moment was using and which in a sense gave them strength to keep fighting. Many people with conservative views also thought that, in order to achieve order and prosperity, they needed to allow the government to track down the ‘bad guys’ and put some order in the country. This presumption of vulnerability allowed many of these governments to act with such disregard for the law and the well-being of the citizen that they became some of the most violent regimens at the time.

We also learned about Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, mothers of individuals who were disappeared by the Juntas because of the dissonance with the dictatorships and their political views. These mothers saw to become the voice of desperation at first, but later they begun to politically organize publically on the main squares in Buenos Aires in order to protest for the many abuses that the Argentinian government had committed against their children. Their demand was: their return of their children. This valiant act, allowed to put a face of grieves out in the open, making a stand where many Argentinian people did not want to voice their opinions out in the open. At the same time that, it also helped bring down one of the bloodiest dictatorships that the region had seen in decades. I think that the fear of thinking that chaos and instability was going to reign the streets of the country, many Argentinians wanted to have stability and the middle class and upper class, blamed anyone who did not looked like the typical or average good citizen, so feminist, freedom-fighters, peace lovers, and especially youth were targeted at the main causes of the problem which plagued the country.

The government of Argentina started to track down the Madres because they saw the enemy in them and because, by the time they were politically present in the Buenos Aires, the government could not get rid of them. Just by being vocal about the brutality of the government, and by talking about the loss of their children, many people within the country and internationally, started to pay close attention to the Madres, giving them a political platform from where they could fight back and know about the circumstances in which their loves ones had disappeared. The Argentinian government were conducting civilian executions, torture, extortion, and kidnapping of many citizens whom opposed to what the Junta Militar wanted for the future of the country. In some respect, this week’s reading reminds me of that short story we read, “The slaughterhouse”, in which barbarism versus civilization practices were presented to us also in Argentina. Later on, during the regime, the Argentinian government were being pressured by exterior forces (President Regan, ONGs, France, etc.) to change its aggressive and horrifying coercive measures.

Week Eleven (De Nuevo): Terror

Week Eleven, , , , , , Leave a comment

This is another period in which Latin America seems to be involved in conflict; this week’s chapter says that between 1960 and 1990, Latin America had one of its bloodiest periods since independence. And this got me thinking, has it this being happening since Christopher Columbus discovered America, I mean, the taken over, used other against their will, and treat them like peasants of an inferior class are direct consequences of the colonial period translated into post-colonial applications. The books also mentions that, during this period, authoritarian governments and their military allies carried unprecedented levels of violence against the civil population in what they called: a communist threat. From my point of view, it seems that every time a government wants to fight against a new opposition force (eg. Labour workers, teachers, syndicates, students, etc.), they always find ways to label them as the enemy which would in turn get the public’s support.

This period is called, the dirty wars but also has other names depending of the context in which this violent attacks took place. But the main ‘problem’ for Latin American countries was the creation all across different countries of guerrilla groups which in which their new members (students, middle class people) had heroic figures such as Che Guevara, a romantic figure which they could use to promote their fight, but which in the end were crushed by their authoritarian right-wind governments. The 20th century in Latin America is remember for being a period in which a series of holocausts, cruel acts of violence created an atmosphere of violence which welcomed new technologies of war. The participants of this cruel and violent period came from a variety of different fronts, such as radical and authoritarian governments which saw in any defiant acts the enemy, also in the formation of guerrilla groups whose base in Marxist’s theories saw to implements change throw any means necessary, included armed conflict and civilian deaths. In other cases, the racialized enemy, members of African descendants and indigenous people were the enemy just because they seemed different by their colour of their skin or because they were on the wrong side of the social scale. In general terms, the problem with having collective paranoia, when trying to identify the enemy was that, the enemy could be anyone.

Torture, random killings, and kidnappings, were at the centre of Latin America past, and in a way, the reason they became such a big deal during the 90’s and after, was because they increasingly more public and mass media published them for everyone to see. Latin America then, becomes a region where corruption in the state can be seen at all levels, where modernity was never at the centre of politicians interest, and where it populations where destined to be second-class citizens. At least this is what books such as “The Open Vains “(Las Venas Abiertas), tells us; however, I more inclined to think that explanations of such level of corruption and violence has much more complex origins and cannot all be traced to one source. In one thing I agree with this week’s reading is that, the everyday struggles of the poor, and the need for a more egalitarian future for all, where inclusion, justice, and wealth fare were policies of the state, was what caused people and students to protest fiercely in public. Hence, the consequence of the repression of such protest like the one that took place in Mexico City on October 2, 1968, caused the Tlatelolco Massacre where several hundreds of students were killed by government officials and covered up by the Mexican President of the time.

Week Eleven: “A Decade of Revolution in Cuba”

Week Eleven, , One Comment

This week’s reading is centered on the Cuban Revolution, its heroes, enemies, and the struggles that the Revolution brought to the Cuban people. The Cuban Revolution then is a symbol of endurance, a continuous fight against the imperialistic forces of the United States, an economic giant, an image which they used to justify their ‘lucha’ (fight) and to convince their own people that better times where yet to come. One thing is clear: the Revolution created dichotomies of “good versus evil”. There have been many people who have suffered because of the revolution. In fact, thousands of refugees, political dissidents, and middle to upper class individuals left Cuba because the new political model was not one that they could live in. The Cuba exodus to the United States was a mechanism in which some saw as opportunity, while others had a difficult time adjusting or belong. Nevertheless, for Cubans who arrive in Miami it was better to be there than to be imprisoned for being against Fidel Castro.

The heroic figures of the Cuban Revolution are mainly Castro, his brother Raul, El Che Guevara, and Camilo Cienfuegos. They together fought against Fulgencio Batista’s regime, a corrupt government, which was aligned with the United States dominant politics. The Cuban revolutionaries wanted to end the tyranny that this relationship represented for the nation and the region. It is fair to say that, Fidel Castro was a very charismatic man. This became evident later when his charismatic political rhetoric transformed him as the savior of the Cuban people. Fidel Castro needed the backing of Cubans if he wanted this so call Revolution to work and rapped his power in egalitarian terms which people could assimilate and support. I wander if this egalitarian idealism is similar to what the French called “Liberté, égalité, and fraternité” or is totally different because of its distinct political ideology? In the end, the Cuban Revolution brought land reforms, the nationalization of foreign property, and politically alignment with the Soviet Union which at the time was very a strong friend.

The Cuban Revolution at the beginning was embedded in utopian thinking; an ideal of what Cuba could become, without really incorporating the opinion of its people. Political, social, and economic transformative policies where implemented at the beginning of the Revolution where a diversion from sugar exports was seen as fundamentally necessary if economic diversification was to be achieved while promoting the industrialization of the country. A new economic model was introduced by Che Guevara where transactions for food, transportation, and rent were all eliminated. Guevara thought that Cubans would understand the rejection of market transactions while adopting the law of value instead which hopefully would increase overall productivity. This of course, totally opposed other economic models promoted by industrialized nations such as Canada and the United States where free markets prevent governments from direct intervention or where government policy is carefully maneuvered. The Cuban Revolution saw to centrally control (from Habana) everything in order to balance the economy and all the social affairs of the island.

It was very interesting to me to read about the ‘machista culture’ which fetishized Castro’s heterosexual masculinity. This in turn, saw to marginalize other people, such as Cuban gays because for the macho Revolutionaries, they were reminders that decadence, sickness, and weakness were still present in Cuba. The utopian idea of the new Cuban man, a man who needed to be strong to fight the imperial North, did not include or tolerate homosexuals. Gay people were viewed as narcissist’s individuals whose main qualities were self-obsession, physical weakness, and depravity. Therefore, in my opinion, by casting aside people because of their sexual orientation the Revolution failed in being inclusive and tolerant, and perhaps lost people who could contribute to the arts such as poets, writers, musicians, and creative people in general.

Week Ten: “Power to the People”

Week Ten, , , View all 4 comments

This week’s readings could have been titled: Populist leaders and the power or the Radio. People like Juan and Eva Peron (Argentina), Getulio Vargas (Brazil), Jorge Elieser Gaitan (Colombia), were categorized as ‘populist’ leaders but I would say that more than populist; they were smart enough to find a way to be charismatic, relatable, and similar they intended to govern. Each one of these leaders, and especially Eva Peron, found in the radio a direct communication channel which catapulted her to power. Populist leaders were not just defined by a normative political style or movement; they were at the centre of a specific time where social and political change was achieved through the incorporation of new technologies such as radio (commercial, propaganda and songs). In the case of Argentine’s working classes, Tango songs were a way to connect with their struggles, solitudes, and desire which in many cases where underestimated or regarded as socially classless. When I think of Tango, I think of Carlos Gardel and the song Cambalache, which my mother used to play and sing along. Similarly, in the same way Gardel was known, remembered, and loved by many in Argentinians and internationally; Eva Peron was a formidable, almost saint-like figure which transformed her country political arena and made her a unique symbol.

 

Peronismo in Argentina started during the 1930’s (la Década Infama) and it was very well supported by the labour workers in that country. Juan Peron himself was a very popular leader, always finding effective ways to communicate his political message which seemed to ally with the country’s working class. Peron, a cleaver man, once in power not only free tango from previous censorship, but also capitalized that he could speak and swear like a Tango singer to connect to the people. Peron was the typical ‘self-made man’, someone who embodied the antithesis of the argentine oligarchy and who followed the social compass of the workers and industrialist people of the time. On the other hand, Juan Peron also used his political position to stablish networks of loyalty from which he could give to his political allies’ jobs, fixed favours, money, food, and more. Conversely, Eva Peron, Juan Peron’s second wife, had a clear and even more loyal relationship with the working Argentinian masses to the point that she renamed them “Los Descamisados” (The Shirtless). This unshakable relationship that Eva Peron created facilitated with her descamisados, positioned her as one of the most powerful people (and woman) in the country. Eva became simply, Evita and with her ability to draw people in, formed a powerful alliance with the working classes of Argentina making her husband’s government and party stronger.

 

In a sense, and to my opinion, Eva Peron was more powerful and loved than his husband ever was. She was never welcomed in Argentine’s high-society, but this did not stop Eva. On the contrary, their acts of cruelty only gave her more courage to get even closer to the working people (to her descamizados). I find interesting how the readings depict the physical transformation which Evita underwent, where her hairstyle and wardrobe evolved, making her stronger, and loving, motherly-like figure of the Argentine people. Eva Peron founded her own foundation (Eva Peron Foundation, FEP), which allowed her to gradually build schools, hospitals, create jobs, and help the poor (donations). Her foundation gave her the political, economic, and social power to get even closer to the working classes of Argentina and made of her a beloved political figure. Her speeches were recorded and played on the radio and heart by many in the cities and across the whole country regardless of class and social status. It also allowed her to be in practically a ubiquitous being ever present. Furthermore, Eva Peron is a romantic political figure which, up to this moment, for some still symbolizes hope for the social struggles which the poor still have to endure at the hands of the powerful.

Commerce, Coercion, and America’s Empire

Week Nine, Leave a comment

The United States presence in Latin America is often represented in simple terms, as a violent oppressor or noble saviour. There are many ideas around this concept but it is up to us to uncover the truths behind them. There is a stigma that comes with being so powerful, and in the case of the United States a negative stigma has been given to its name because even since the beginning, its presence in the region has been stabilised to the expense of Latin America’s peoples. On the other hand, one cannot think of the United States without thinking of mass-consumption, excess, technology, and the idea of progress. For example, even today, the most important technology companies are located in one specific region of the U.S: Silicon Valley. In the case of Latin America, American companies, and therefore, American commercial influence has been present since the very beginning. Once the need in the United States was created for products it could not harvest itself, then new markets had to be reached. Latin America was a great candidate because of its geographical location (the tropics and Sothern hemisphere). It had all the necessary raw materials need for production and commerce, and finally, it was a great market place for the new products being made up north. However, these commercial relationships, at the beginning of the twentieth century, were negotiated from a very imperialistic point of view were Americans saw themselves as superior as their Latin American counterparts and stablished ideological, physical, and economic dominance over the this whole ‘under-developed’ region.

 

The United Fruit Company (UFCO) was a very important enterprise for many Latin American countries because for many of them, the UFCO acted like the sole provider of employment in the region. The UFCO had so much influence in Central America with its banana plantations that in some cases they were more powerful that the governments of these local countries. The UFCO was sometimes the only provider of employment, electricity, health, and even housing for many people who sometimes moved from faraway places to work. But, the UFCO has also being criticized for its exploitative practices were the main focus was given to the bottom-line and no much importance to the actual people who work for them. I think that here is where the problem lies, I mean, too much importance has been given to the commodity production and very little to the labour production and workers of banana plantations. Do we really care where our bananas really come from? Honestly, I did not think too much about it when it came time to buy them, but after reading so much about the importance that banana production had in Latin America, now I will be more conscious about it.

 

When I was reading about the complexities of cultural flows, I found this topic very interesting because it showed me that this is a phenomenon that has been happening for quite some time and I thought it was a recent one. For example, the story of Carmen Miranda was very fascinating to learn about. She left after being so famous in her home country of Brazil and was attracted by fame and glory in the United States. I wonder if Carmen Miranda ever felt embarrassed for being such a stereotypical figure and wanted to leave it all behind. It must had been pretty boring to always play the sexy Latin woman and never had the opportunity to show more versatility in her acting roles. Furthermore, I see that such appropriation of people and figures still takes place in Latin America and artist like Shakira, for example, leave their home land in order to achieve their dreams in the United States. Personally speaking, I think that if an artist thinks that his/her career will be more successful abroad, then he/she must move. If ‘better’ opportunities happen to be in the U.S, then that is where they must go. However, the problem I have with this is that if during this process of acculturation and ‘crossover’ the artist becomes a racial or a stereotyping cliché, then the artist should remember that he/she also represents a whole community.

 

Regarding the videos for this week, I must say I was very shocked by the racialized language content they seemed to present. I know they were from another era but still. These videos make you think about power relations and the struggles of some people against other. Also, it makes you think of the geographical division and epistemologies of a global North versus the underdeveloped South. As well as, of how people may see themselves as better than others and how media, once again, plays an important part in promoting and seeding stereotyping ideologies. Not even cartoons from Walt Disney were exempt from playing such an important discriminatory and racialized role in all of this.

Week 8: Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age

Week Eight, View all 2 comments

When we focus exclusively as a way to understanding modernity in an economic way, then we can leave out even after the golden age of the export oligarchy ended there were people who did not beneficiated from such period. The cycles of inequalities have always been very close to the daily lives of Latin Americans and power relations and power struggles are the current result of disparities in the region. One of the big factors which can be seen as the consequence of the struggle of a few who have too much against a vast majority of at the bottom of the social scale who do not possess much, is the Mexican Revolution. After watching the video, I found very illuminating that there has been a constant nationalist rhetoric to claim ownership on history and how history has been created. I say that perhaps that Alexander Dawson was trying to say was that the way history is presented in to us in a dichotomy manner with winners on one side and loser on the other. However, I ask: can the lines of the revolution be so complicated that these lines are not so clear and therefore, can enemies get together or form a coalition to gain even greater power?

Politics and power are also at play in every central government and I think that presidents and government figures, if stay in power for too long, they will tend to lose focus of their political agenda and become self-involved. This is the case of the Party of the Institutionalized Revolution (PRI) of Mexico which stood in power since 1929 until the year 2000. Is this what we call a healthy democratic process or is it more of an alienation with a majority of assembled power which it is hard to get rid of. Furthermore, I also find important to ask who are the winners or losers of a process like the Mexican revolution. For instance, we have learned that in Mexico, there was the oligarchy of few at the top who wanted to remain in power no matter what, but what about the indigenous people of the south of Mexico who after the creation of the Republic lost their land without any legal compensation. This is very unjust and is these kinds of abusive expression of power which lead to wars and conflict for years to come. Hence, indigenous movements like the EZLN use such rhetoric based on their iconic leader Emiliano Zapata to fight back against a government that does not fight fair. Another fun fact for me knew that this group, the EZLN and the Neo- Zapatistas were the first guerilla group ever to use the internet and other forms of telecommunication platforms to launch their rebellion internationally. What I also find interesting here is the scope and importance that NGO’s currently play in the international political arena and that they can be very powerful allies of small anti-government groups like the EZLN. Are NGO’s new forms of governmental bodies? Do we really need intervention from such bodies? I would say that in most cases ONG’s are very effective ways to do good in the world, such in the case like Doctors without Borders, but I also question the extend in which some governments and anti-government groups may find financial and political support.

Regarding our assigned reading for the week, I have to say that I enjoyed “To Roosevelt”, by Ruben Dario because I love its poetic emphasis of the encroaching of superpowers like the United States has over Latin America. It also reminds us that empires come and go, but their effects can last for years to come. On the other hand, I also find very relevant to read “El Plan de Ayala”, by Emiliano Zapata and for me, such document shows that Zapata was not a simple minded ranchero but someone who was very intelligent and a person with national identity.

Week Seven: “The Export Boom as Modernity”

Week Seven, , , , , One Comment

This week’s reading was very centered on the theme of modernity and it got me thinking. I mean, if you have taken economy classes, you probably have learned that the fastest way for an underdeveloped country to embrace progress is through forest investment and international borrowing. Many countries in Latin America followed this policy after the colonial era was over. Many governments in power did not want to remain behind of what they saw as a very tight door leading towards prosperity, modernity, and enlightenment. It must have been very difficult for Porfirio Diaz to resist the temptation of inviting American investors and military machinery personnel to help him show a more prosperous and less backwards Mexico. After all, at the time what counted as modernity was the appearance of the electricity running through public streets, new modes of transportation (railways), and new fashion stores selling European clothes symbolizing a continued fixation for the foreign, while undermining the locality. However, these 18th and 19th century ideas of a modernity in Latin America, were centrally planned and implemented by a few people who had the intellectual, political, and economical capabilities to implement, sometimes by force, theories of order and progress designed to rule over marginalized classed whom were already used to be told what to do. This is not to say that, when oppressed people did not revolved in Latin America; on the contrary, many rebellions and revolts were initiated in order to fight such repressive forms of governments.

That many governments in Latin America and their elites (oligarchies) thought that the only way to achieve modernity was to clean their indigenousness and their blackness out of their veins, was another scientific approach to what a few saw as the problem and leading the region towards barbarism. How can you get rid of who you are as a nation? Destroy many indigenous monuments, build upon previous indigenous cities and think that somehow the answer could still come from Europe through immigration, economic policies, imports, exports, fashion, and technology? What it is more troublesome, oligarchies never thought to incorporate traditional ways of life that many indigenous and other minority groups had successfully had in the local communities in Latin America. I’m sure that when they actually did, like in the case of Mexico during Porfirio Diaz, they only saw to parade them as relics of the past and never as functioning vibrant sectors within Mexican society. Now, I see the connections that such oligarchic measures inflicted upon modern Latin America and one that still can be seen as current economic dependency in foreign policies. Hence, the incorporation of the region into international forces such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), The World Trade Organization (WTO), and NAFTA, has catapulted new post-colonial, imperialistic, and neoliberal modes of domination over many Latin American counties and other marginal societies.

To conclude, I would like to say that James Creelman’s “Porfirio Diaz, Hero of the Americas”, was a bit too much. How can a professional writer like I imagine he was, could be so adulating, and exaggerated, almost blind towards a man who he did not know very well at all. Once you have finished reading the excerpt, it is hard not to question him uncanny extreme admiration for Diaz, which makes you wonder of his real political intentions.

Week Six: “Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics”

Week Six Leave a comment

Week Six: “Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics”

The concept of citizenship, at least from the modern democratic point of view, is a recent one. Its meaning changes through time and what it represents may also depends of who is at the top of the hierarchical scale implementing laws and regulations. In the case of Latin America, we have learned that as early as the 18th century with the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, attempts were made for “men”, to place themselves as citizens within their own country. However, this step forward also represented a void with regards, once again, to native populations, mestizos, people of African descendants (slaves and free-man), and women.

The enlightenment period brought with it new ideas regarding rights for the citizen, these notions also opened hopeful expectations for a more equal society within the region which in the end were never fulfilled. For example, when the first battle for emancipation was won in the Caribbean, the rest of Latin America was paying close attention and elites in each country used racial political discourses of liberation and freedom, to win over the black population. However, once such battles of liberation against European imperialistic powers were won, many of these liberal criollo elites forgot about their promises and used segregation and alienation as a way to limit power mobility of non-European people. For example, I find very interesting that as early as 1902, Cuba’s constitution allowed adult males the right of vote, regardless of race, still when soldiers of African origin insisted for a better appreciation for their right to vote and requested a meaningful way (by accessing to lands, farming, or other means), white Cuban elites responded by denying their efforts and showcasing their blackness as symbolic of barbarism.

Now, regarding the documents about limiting citizenship, I have some mixed-feelings. First, Raimundo’s essay on “The fetishist Animism of the Bahia’s Blacks”, gives me the impression that the elevated used of language tries to hide a deep racial misconception that he holds against black people. Raimundo uses his ‘scientific’ research findings as a way to justify his views but such observations lack validity. For example, his comparison of Bahia’s worship and fetishism as those of Africa, by far are his weakest proof and undermines people of African ancestry their religions and cultural practises. He sees these practices as bad but does not fully understand them and deems them as backwards automatically positioning him as superior. Second, the “Political Program of the Partido Independiente de Color”, has some interesting points towards the recognition of military blacks in Cuba and their war efforts. It goes on to demand queal rights for all military blacks out of society (land, education, vote, etc.). This is very advance for its time and goes on to show that many military men where highly educated and that they wanted what was best for the community as a whole. Third, Maria Echenique’s “Brushstrokes”, is a great feminist attempt to create a dialogue between women of her time and tries to go beyond poetic term. It takes a stand towards a more practical, political, and philosophical role of the woman, not only their personal lives, but in the civil lives. Conversely, Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta’s “The Emancipation of Women”, is not very helpful with regards with to the feminism. Her argument is probably one of the most stupid arguments I’ve ever heart with regards to women’s role in society. She places them as physically weak, wives, muses of men, tender, etc. To some up, Pelliza’s essay is not a very good example of the feminist movement but it shows us the types of thinking women of the time were expressing regarding their own positionality in history.

Week 4: “Independent Narratives, Past and Present”

Week Four, , , , , , View all 3 comments

After doing this week’s readings there are a few things I’ve learned:

First, I’ve learned that Media can be used as a tool for propaganda and that in order to motivate people into believing in any case, actors of war create social division of ‘us’ against ‘the other’, which leads to labelling individuals and often used at will in discursive devises (‘freedom fighters’ and the ‘Bolivarian dream’). On the other side, many atrocities were committed in the name of independence and we need to bear in mind the losing side: Indigenous people, slaves of African descendants, and other minority groups such as women who were not heart but actively participated in the war. Furthermore, the struggle of independence in Latin America was created in various countries and did not have a unified time-line. Conversely, the independence narratives we hear containing heroic names (such as Simon Bolivar), are directly connected with people’s perception of heroism and weather people considered them to be heroes or not. Hence, in Latin America, ‘criollos’, were at the center of the revolts again the Spanish/Portuguese Empire.

The first document, Simon Bolivar and his “Letter from Jamaica”, contains a message to the duke of Manchester but also a self-reflection of how how Latin American should be organize politically and economically, without the intervention of any empire. His intent is towards forming a ‘Pan-American’ central government in which an authoritarian ruler would control the continental affairs for the good of the liberal majority. From the start, Bolivar knew that, at the time, his dream was a just a dream. However, there are people currently in Latin American who think and wish to maintain Bolivar’s dream alive because the current political arena still doesn’t favour the mass majority of people at the bottom of the social scale. In fact, Bolivar’s letter invites his national counterparts to stop “suffering at the hands of that unnatural mother-Spain”; this evil characterization serves as a rhetoric tool to appeal to the hegemonic control that the Spanish Empire had in many countries in the region. On the other hand, there is a lot of exaggeration (hyperbole) used throughout his letter; for example, “examine as I may the entire history of time and the politics of all nations”. This is, for a lack of words, humanly impossible to do; however, Bolivar’s goal was to appeal knowledgeable to his reader about previous models of governance. Also, there is used of many metaphors such as in “the veil has being asunder”, pointing out that ‘criollos’ now see Spain for what it is: an abusive mother whose main self-interest of insatiable greed was to extract wealth out of her colonies without carrying for her sons and daughters.

Jose Marti’s “Our America”, talk in a very poetic manner to his audience but his intent is very political and wishes to awake a Latin American population whom has been comfortable for way too long. Marti aims to appeal to the power of the ideas and his goal is to cause an appropriation of the land, of being mixed race, which in turn, would reflect the majority of people in post-colonial Latin America and who are not participating or deciding on what is best for them. Furthermore, Marti invites Latin Americans to instruct themselves and to obtain local knowledge from their own communities and stop going to school outside their countries (USA and Europe). Marti also calls for the respect Indians and nature. The government has to be born within the country and run by local countrymen.

Lastly, Hugo Chavez speech at the opening of XII G-15 summit has some very relevant points in the economic, political, and socio-cultural arena of current Latin American. However, I must confess that I do not liked his political agenda and personally I know of many Venezuelan friends who had to fled their country because the situation inside was unbearable. Nonetheless, while I was reading his speech I wanted to know who wrote it because from an International Relations point of view, there were many spot on points which speak to the inequalities of the global division of the North versus the South, technology superiority of USA, economic development and Keynesian Theories of open markets, NAFTA’s negative effects on rural development in Latin America, and lastly, American interventionism and their imperialistic agenda. To sum up, I could go on and on, but generally speaking, I must agree with much of the message of his speak, but the mare idea of agreeing with him makes me want to vomit.