Esteban Echeverria was an Argentine poet, writer and political activist and also one of Latin America’s most important literature figures, as he said to have written the first romantic ‘Castilian’ (castellano) novels. A man with strong political ideals and social opinion, and an Unitarian leader, Echeverría wrote “El Matadero”, a short story, considered throughout not only Argentina but also all of Latin America as a cornerstone of national literature and remains one of the most studied texts in Latin America. The text is an outspoken and aggressive criticism to Juan Manuel Rosas’ Federalist regime in Argentina at the time, filled with sarcasm, irony and a certain degree of sardonic humour.

Echeverria starts the short story by questioning The Church; he makes use of religious allusions and metaphors. He remarks on the ability of the Church to control the law, for example when talking about lent, on how the Church would not only decided when people could and could not eat meat, but also who is and isn’t exempt from these rules. This can be said to be a metaphor to Rosas governance, to demonstrate, how De Rosas did not only make the laws, but also decided when and how to enforce them. He then goes on to introduce the Unitarian vs. Federalist. Depriving the Unitarians of personal identity, and comparing the Unitarian to a bull (with balls). Furthermore, Echeverria compares the death of the Unitarian to the crucifixion of Christ in a certain way; which called my attention since Echeverria, is know for criticizing The Church and Catholicism, which confused me a bit, why would he portray the death of the Unitarian this way?

Another remarkable thing about the text is how Echeverria doesn’t refrain himself from using very evocative words when describing “El Matadero” The Slaughterhouse – as if his intention is to disgust the reader, in order so, that once you are done reading, you are aware of how truly barbaric were the events that took place in the story. A few years back I had to analyze this story for a Spanish literature class, and the original spanish version manages to be even more explicit and grotesque. “From a distance the view of the slaughterhouse was now grotesque, full of animation.  Forty-nine steers were stretched out upon their skins and about two hundred people walked about the muddy, blood-drenched floor” (lovely imagery).

In conclusion, the whole reading can be seen as a big metaphor, the story is there to demonstrate how Esteban Echeverria believed the Argentinian people were being treated under the governance of Rosas. The slaughterhouse was Argentina and the cattle were the people.

I believe that anyone that has lived or visited Latin American could identify with the example used at the begging of the chapter regarding Ecatepec and Polanco. It’s an issue that’s present in almost any big metropolis in Latin America, and it’s a perfect way to introduce to topic that even though someone can identify themselves as Latin American, within this region, there is an immense diversity of language, culture, customs, beliefs, economical stance, political view etc. Which reminded me of one the discussions in our first class, in which a group when trying to use two words to describe Latin America agreed on “Diverse” and “Unified” (or something along those words). Dawson mentions how “the idea of Latin America offered a vision of strength through unity”, yet Latin America is a region whose multiple histories are not easily reducible to a single narrative, since deep divisions can be found here, division that are rooted in centuries of experience and history. So many times it happens that people generalize our culture and customs, and it comes from the very ‘project’ as the author describes it, of trying to tell the story of Latin American past as a common history, when in reality the “efforts to keep this vast region in the frame requires a series of intellectual risk”. Though the author mentions how “stories we tell are invariably limited by the incompleteness of the historical record, and its tendency to reflect the views of those (in) power”, I enjoyed how he gives us “fragments” of history, in order to better understand the actual occurrence of events, and so he is able to offer some insight into the complexity of what is and what was the story of Latin America. Schoolhouse Rock – something that really called my attention, was the passage which he mentions the children’s show Schoolhouse Rock, and the way they portrayed history. Which was something that I personally experience when I moved to the USA. I had lived in Latin America and gone to ‘non-american’ schools until the age of 13 when I moved to the USA for a year, and the class that confused me the most was history, because even though, it wasn’t a very intensive or detailed class, the way they taught history was completely different from the way I had learnt beforehand, which only emphasizes how history isn’t really “what happened, but is what is said about what happened” (Michel-Rolph Trouillot).

Casta was a Portuguese and Spanish term used during the colonization period to depict as a whole the mixed-race people who arose from the post-conquest period. This system was established on the principle that the quality and the character of the person varied according largely to their birth, color, race and origin of ethnic types. This was not only a system of social-racial classification, but rather it impacted every aspect of a person’s life, even to include economics and taxation. In Latin America,  a person’s socio-economic status usually correlated with their race or racial mix in the know family background, or simply on phenotype if the family background was unknown. In other words, many high government officials and wealthy people were of ‘Iberian’ background, while indigenous or african ancestry, or even just darker skin, was usually relates with poverty and inferiority. So in that time, the ‘whiter’ the heritage a person could claim, the higher status they could claim, contrarily, darker features meant less opportunities. Unfortunately, this is still something that shows itself relevant in the present day. The Casta Paintings depicts images of of mixed-race families; Meztizos, Castizos, Cholos, Pardos, Mulatos, Zambos etc. At the beginning of the spanish colonial period, there were four primary categories of races: Spaniards, Criollo (a person of European descent born in the Americas), Indio and Negro. And with this the spaniards developed a very complex caste system, which they used for social control and which also determined a person’s importance in society, so for some (especially the spanish elite) it caused them great angst to see a disruption of their clear social-racial hierarchy in colonial society, which privilege them. So for them the Casta Paintings in a sort of way represent the end of the ‘white supremacy’. While on the other hand the Casta Paintings show as Deans-Smith put it a “colonial life and mixed-race people in idealized terms”. At the time this paintings were made it conveyed a lot of controversial views, and each viewer responded to them according to their own contexts and points of reference. I personally really loved the Casta Paintings, and the images and the purpose behind the provocative genre. Coming from a family that has an immense diverse background, I believe that that to a certain extent we are all mixed-races.

When Christopher Columbus threw himself on the journey to cross the emptiness of the unknown west with the expectation that he would arrive in the Indies, he had no idea that he would end up finding the new world. When landing in San Salvador he was dazzled by the green landscape, by the fauna and the soft clean air, he was fascinated by ample source of nature around him. As soon as Columbus made contact with the locals he remarked on their appearance and how they walked around naked and exposed, emphasizing on how “simple” they were compared to them.  He gave the natives red caps and string of beads, and various things of little values, which they were thrilled with, while they ran to grab everything anything they could in order to exchange. He showed them a sword, and remarked how they were ignorant towards it since they grasped the sharp edges and cut themselves with it. I believe this introduces one of the main reasons the Spaniards had such ease in the conquest for Latin America, in the sense that they had an advantage over what was considered the unknown for the natives. They had gunpowder, horses, and swords. This, unfortunately, immediately established superiority over the natives. Another thing that called my attention was when Christopher Columbus mentions; right after analyzing the man, the woman and the children, how “they would readily become Christians”. He then says it should be done “by love ‘rather’ than by coercion”, which many know is not how the story ends up unfolding once he returns. I believe that throughout history, religion has been used as a cover up and an excuse for deplorable acts, such as in this case, the exploitation of natural resources, specifically gold and silver in this period of time. Columbus spoke about conversion to the holy faith and following the word of god, and how they would be helping the native population – yet they went around enslaving people and executing unspeakable acts. What Latin America comes to suffer can be considered a genocide during the colonization era, and not only that, but Latin America was exploited for its natural resources to the point in which its wealth, that nourished the prosperity of the colonizers, was the one that generated its poverty.

What do Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, and Muammar Gaddafi have in common? Apart from being responsible, democratically elected leaders, they all had the pleasure of having me live in their countries. I’m Hanna Dandanell, currently a second year student from Brazil hoping to major in International Relations, I’ve lived around the world in 7 different countries and picked up a bit from everywhere I’ve been. Brasil, Venezuela, USA, Libya, Peru, Cuba, and now Canada; I am what most people call “third culture child”. I aspire to major in IR in order to learn about global issues from a variety of perspectives-issues including poverty, war, disease, trade, democracy, diplomacy, economics, and globalization in an effort to integrate this major points and work together for a better world. Having lived most of my life in Latin America, I feel a deep connection and affection towards it, but at the same time, I’m aware of all the social issues, inequality, corruption, poverty and violence that reigns over it. With that in mind, I’m looking forward to this course!