After reading Our America, I can understand how it has been interpreted so many ways, and how both supporters of Castro and opponents of his might believe that the piece reflects their views. I think the confusion comes from how Marti talked more about what not to do than what to do. He was very clear on the need for a new government system tailored to the needs of Latin America and not based on the governments of Europe or North America, but he never stated what that might be. He stressed how the differences between Latin America and other places meant that Latin America had unique needs, but he didn’t elaborate on what those differences were and why they mattered to forming a government.

I’ve so far been using the term Latin America, even though he never used it in his piece; he only said “our” America, which caused further ambiguity. He never defined what “our” America was, he only said what it was not. He differentiated “his” America from North America, yet when he was talking about revolutions to be inspired by, he mentioned Mexico and Central America. I assume that “North America” was referring specifically to the parts of North America that weren’t under Spanish rule. He was Cuban, which is also technically part of North America, although he clearly would not have seen himself as North American. I believe that the term Latin America would have been coined by the time that Marti wrote this piece. I wonder why he didn’t use it. It could be that it hadn’t become widespread or commonly used yet, so he wasn’t familiar with it. Maybe he knew the term, but didn’t approve of it because it had been invented by a European royal. Or maybe he said “our” America instead of Latin America so it would feel more personal and important to its intended audience.

Thinking about his intended audience also creates some confusion. As noted in the lecture video, his writing style is excessively flowery and metaphorical. Part of his message was that everyone needed to unite, and uplift the low and oppressed. Yet, in a time in which it was likely difficult for everyone to get a proper education, it seems that writing in such a complicated way would exclude many of the people that he was trying to inspire. While I think I understood the majority of the piece, there were a few paragraphs and allegories that completely lost me. At parts, it seemed as if he was intentionally trying to be vague and confusing. He valued new ideas and creativity, so writing an ambiguous piece that could be interpreted many ways might have been his way of trying to create many new opinions. If he had been very clear and straightforward, the piece would have produced fewer ideas and debates. He was clear enough about his main points, such as uniting across nations and races and doing away with European influence, but he left much of the rest of his essay open to interpretation.