Towards an Uncertain Future

In concluding this course, I feel like it has been a very sad course. At the beginning of the course we see the white superiority of colonization over indigenous peoples, the era of Lieutenant Nun, and the low class lives of most of the non-elitists in Latin America. There never seemed to be a happy part f this course, which is kind of surprising because many times we think of current day Latin America to be happy. The sunny weather and vacation spots that scatter this region, seems to glare over the true identity of the region; geographically and culturally. This chapter seemed to be a fitting end because there are uncertainties within the region.

In an increasing world of globalization, I believe we are going to see further inequality between the Global North and the Global South, which doesn’t bode well for many Latin American countries. These countries are not the typical periphery countries when applying migration theories because of the amount of natural resources within the countries. It makes sense for many of these people to try to make a living within their homeland, however because of global powers they are still stuck in developing economies as developing countries.

Through much of the violence and civil wars and the episodes of hard realities, the people of Latin America have become socialized into a culture where government can not always be counted upon, and politics, most definitely is not the answer. Dawson uses Mexico as an example with the earthquake, and how people had already given up on the government to make any sort of response useful. A lack of a government direction to this incident has had lasting impressions because of the economic butt-kicking/crisis the country faced at the time, and how it has affected the future generation.

Critical question…Why? Many countries face war and violence and democratic issues, but WHY has many Latin American countries still not have been able to recover?

How will these countries recover; can they fully?

Speaking Truth to Power

I have always thought about the various era’s of life that we (Canadian public school students K-12) are taught in school and wonder what kind of era we are currently living in today. The Industrial Revolution, followed by two episodes of war stand are 3 time periods that we are taught extensively. But in the decade before September 11, 2001 and the years after and which we are present in, I think about a “Technologic Revolution.” I firmly believe that the actions of 9/11 altered technology extensively, as the way we think of logistics and terror needed to be revamped. Because of this incident, I believe that society needed to rely on technology more so than ever before, and the rapid growth of technology trying to be bigger and better has not stopped, and will never, ever stop. The beginning of this chapter expresses how technology was crucial in the building of a nation in the 20th century, and the involvement of states with technology. Radio, television and newspapers were all results of the Industrial Revolution, however it seems the implications of these technologies have helped form a new revolution. Not only have they built nations, but they have steadied the nations.

When reading about the slaughter done by the Argentinian government, I was truly shocked. ‘The Slaughterhouse’ document we had read earlier in the semester seemed to have more meaning, even though it had nothing to do with these events, at all, coming from two very different time periods. However it was sort of anecdotal to have it relate these many years later. In response to this slaughter, it brought up a feminist movement, of these mothers in protest. Feminist theory has so many layers and is so very much complex, yet this protest brought power to mothers, and women for the future. Throughout this whole chapter I was surprised about the treatment of women, girls and young people in Latin America.

Oh, the United States, thinking they are so powerful, always.

The war on drugs will never be won. Either states need to somehow decriminalize or legalize the ‘process’ of drugs, or need to stop investing billions of dollars into the drug war. As I mentioned earlier about technology and finding new ways to enhance technology, creating a war on drugs is exactly what drug producers want because it offers them new resources to evade the government, and still somehow find ways the get drugs to their destination.

Critical question…DO you think the treatment of women and children is an issue of cultural appropriation or Spanish identity?

Critical question…Do you agree or disagree with my statement that the war on drugs will never be won?

Cultural Independence of Cuba: Marti and Castro

Jose Marti and Fidel Castro were two men who loved their country very much, that can not be denied. That country was Cuba. Though these men come at different very different eras of Cuba, Marti in the back half of the 19th century, and Castro in the back half of the 20th century. And even though these two men may not have been aligned politically or socially, they both had a vision for Cuban identity and culture which included liberation. As well, how has Castro continued a legacy of Marti; is there even a legacy? As some scholars have pointed out, it may only be Castro that puts himself on the same hierarchy as Marti, in terms of great Cuban patriotic leaders. Jose Marti dedicated his life to make Cuba a free entity uncontrolled by Spanish rule. For Marti, Cuba needed to be liberated from the Spanish because Cubans had their own identity, that was not Spanish. For Marti it was unnecessary for Cuba to be at the behest of the Spanish government because Cuba was a different entity. Marti’s life goal was “to secure the complete liberation of Cuba and Puerto Rico from Spain, prevent [Cuba’s and Puerto Rico’s] annexation by the United States, and establish democratic and free republics” (Lacuona 1991: 55). This is obviously in stark contrast to Castro’s idea of his Cuba. Marti advocated for the democratic stability of Cuba, and Castro took to “total domination” (Lacuona 1991: 55) of Cuba through communism. Castro believed that liberating the Cuban people meant for equality of man, and turned Cubans into “slaves of the [state]” (Lacuona 1991: 56). In 1962, Castro delivered the Second Declaration of Havana which sought to uprise the people of Cuba, much like Marti’s Nuestra America. Castro reports on the economic instability of Latin America as a whole, comparative to the United States; it’s an anti-American sentiment that both leaders share in common. Castro compares the Cuba he is speaking of to the times of the Middle-Ages, where a new social class is about to be created, yet it will only weaken society (World Sourcebook 1997). In conclusion, there are two men at different stages of a developing countries life, in which they think that their assertion of power is better than someone else’s. Marti will definitely be held to a better place in Cuban society than Castro because of his promotion of democracy. Without a democratic framework, there would be no Castro to try and revolutionize this work. I can agree that Marti was first-class in creating a Cuba for everybody, and without Marti, Castro and communism would have never been given the chance to survive in Cuba.


Lecuona, Rafael A. March 1991. “Jose Marti and Fidel Castro.” International Journal on World Peace 8(1): 45-61.

Modern History Sourcebook. 1997. From Fidel Castro’s Personal Revolution in Cuba: 1959­           1973, by James Nelson Goodsell (New York: Knopf, 1975), pp. 264-268. Retrieved November 11, 2017 (

Power to the People

Document 7.1: At first I thought this was somewhat undemocratic. It felt that by having a husband and wife run for president and vice-president, that it would not serve a country’s interest. Yet, this group of people of Argentina were so fully pressed for it, it seemed odd, but maybe a sign of the times. General Peron was the leader of a left-leaning political party, and this notion of undermining democracy which came to my mind, sort of escalated, however as the chapter is titled, “Power to the People,” the two leaders really did just give the power to the people.

Document 7.2 and 7.3: General Peron is viewed as a hero for the people in his own words but also from the views of the people. He as able to get rid of slavery, enhance education, etc. blah-blah-blah, and still manage to be contentful to a large group of people. To some extent it is the opposite of present-day USA. The president is not listening to the people of his country, yet only to the vanguard and his own associates. Trump is running a nation like a business, and pissing off a lot of people and a lot of people of his nation. The speech is extremely sarcastic, and has the same tone as some of the other documents and speeches that we have read. There is an arrogance, and a dramatizing of ideals that is entailed in this document, much alike what we have read before.

Document 7.4: This document outlines what the wife of General Peron had much to do with the running of presidency. She cries her attentions and to why she felt the power of the Argentinian people. This was a short document that just decries her intention because of her love for her husband and being a ‘Peronista.” All 4 documents include the term descamisados which is a Spanish term for “shirtless one” but also a term that the Peron’s used to call their followers. But a shirtless one, it is meant as one who is impoverished and struggling with their everyday life. Peron was a left leaning socialist and used this term to identify his followers, in a smart way, to group these people into one, and give them an identity, apart from being Argentinian.

Who actually asserts more power over the other one: people or the government?

Spam prevention powered by Akismet