Week 12 readings enclose a very important topic for Latin America, human rights. At the beguining of the chapter, Dawson metions how difficult it has been for the governmental institutions to implement order, law and loyalty in their people; therefore, the use of violence and uncountable wars as a form of control. Ofcourse this makes a state weak.

The first example given is the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo, as a product of the wars in which the authoritarian states make disapear any type of oposition. I think this is one characteristic that Latin American countries have in common. All countires share difficult war stories, grief of the working class, thousands of murders, and “dissapearences”. None of them is less important than the other or less painful. I particulary feel horrified with this part of our history, it seems so  inhumane and hard to believe someone could support those acts, yet they happened a lot of times in Latin America. This is also why it I found no surprise in the fact that foreign journalist started to writte sympathetic pieces about the Madres, even some artist began writting songs and poems about the Madres. Humans can be so empathetic and so unforgiving with people’s lives at the same time.

The Video “Where Are our Children?” clearly shows the demands of the Madres. You can feel the  passion, their anguish, their sorrow. Again, women are the ones that have to put up with war, they suffer war, some participate, and sympathize with with the warriors, but most of them dont understand war, and they curse them. Personally, I don’t understand war, I will always think there must be an alternative. These women just confim that it is impossible to win a war. In wars we all lose lifes, dreams and we just bring desolation and grief. Maybe we needede the perspective of a mother to highlight even more the impacts of war and Violence on the people. Revolutionary Women’s Law is the second document and goes really well with empowering  women. I really liked this one, I felt it was really idealistic but very much needed in that time. It was definitely a call for transformation of the social relations.

The last chapter of the book gave us an insight of the violence and difficult situations Latin American countries had to face. But at the same time it showed how people can stand up an fight for Human Rights. There is always hope. Latin America always have hope for the future.

It was easy to imagine the content of this week’s readings when reading the title of the chapter. Violence, guerrillas, oppostitions, masacres, bloodbaths… terror. I personally think this chapter encloses one of the most important peaks in the history of Latin America. Most of the texts evoke a lot of strong emotions. It is very hard not to feel any sympathy after reading tragedies with tons of victims and awful perpetrators. I can see why people joined the guerrillas, and why they were creating this expressions of opposition; they were tired of watching the government representing just a small portion of society.

Document 1, was the excerpt of Mario Vargas Llosa’s essay. I’ve never read anything form him besides his literature work. It was really intersting to see a different perspective of his work. I had a bit of confussion with his position, I felt like he was a bit too harsh on expressing his assumptions about Andean paesants as primitive and unawere of the current systems of politics. On the other hand, document 2, had a really left side touch. The excerpt of president Gonzalo talks about war undermining again the indigenous people, yet including them in war.

Fujimori”s declaration has a really strong determination. I think Fujimory was a true leader, (not saying a good or a bad one) just really determined and not afraid of change. But at the same time, I think he saw Peru in a really dark place, and saw himself as a saviour. Finally, document 4, reveals the extremes of Fujiomori, and his war with Sendero Luminoso. When I was reading it, I remembered a lot of stories from my grandmother, she lived in the years of civil war, and she lived through the times of massive killings and kidnappings in Colombia. She knew it wasn’t only in Colombia, but aslo she was aware of the situation of Peru.

This peak in Latin American history has shaped the course of each country, and gave the roots of the problems that today we face. This period of time determined the level of education, economic growth and development of the nations. Most importantly, it shaped the way Latin Americans responded to new challenges and new governments. FEAR was imprinted in every victim, and violations of the Human Rights were something that people excpected in a regular basis.

“Simón Bolivar: Una Síntesis del Libertador” – Bushnell, David. 

In this article, David Bushnell gives a great overview of the life, accomplishments and goals of Simón Bolivar. Starting by describing the influence of Bolivar in the new politics, the author refers to Bolivar as the main influence for all the political movements. Even Though none of them captures the true vision of Bolivar, their basis lie fundamentally on what he did and stated. Following the overview, the article describes Bolivar’s education based on the illustration and political and social innovations. This lead him to get involved in the politics and support for the Nueva Granada, to write inspirational letters and attend military movements. One of the most significant and successful ones,  the Batalla de Boyacá, was one of the factors that contributed to the foundation of the Republic of Colombia. In addition, it gave Bolivar the  yearning for alliance and unity of the nations of Latin America.

The article will be the resource for our project to answer the question of what made Simón Bolivar an important figure and how he influence current politics and nations. Bolivar diagnosed most of the problems of Latin America, and made explicit the need of creating local and national institutions. Most importantly, he claimed the ideals of personal freedom and solidarity within Latin America, which were the motivation for what was to come.

Bushnell, D. (1991). Simón Bolivar: Una Síntesis del Libertador. Revista Credencial Histórica, Bogotá Colombia. April 16. Retrieved from: http://www.banrepcultural.org/node/32305

“La Independencia de la Nueva España y La Capitanía de Guatemala” -Urrego, Miguel Angel.  

In this article, Urrego gives a chronology of the events that lead to Mexico and Central America Independence, as well as their importance for the social classes, religion and national symbolism. The author highlights the importance of Miguel Hidalgo and José Maria Morelos throughout the text. This article will help the project to answer the questions of how Hidalgo become an important figure and the ways he helped to shape today’s society.

The idea of independence began to become real with the announcements of Hidalgo and Costilla in Guanajuato 1810. Hidalgo gathered the indigenas, and made an appeal to the Virgen of Guadalupe while rejecting the neglecting government; finally he formed a successful army. He claimed freedom for slaves and attempted to form a provisional government. After he was executed, the rebellion did not stop, and Morelos took leadership of the insurgent. It was after his death that Mexico sign the act of independence of the Mexican Empire, with the negotiation of Guerrero and Iturbide.

Meanwhile Hidalgo was fighting for independence, the war in Nueva España lead to the lack of interest of Spain for the Capitanía General of Guatemala. Therefore, all the provinces of Central America inclined for the independence, even though some figures, like Agustin de Iturbide, pretended to create the Mexican Empire. The Capitaía defined later the Provincias Unidas de Centroámerica, excluding Mexico.

Urrego, M.A. (2010). La Independencia de la Nueva España y La Capitanía de Guatemala. Revista Credencial Histórica, Bogotá Colombia. June. Retrieved from: http://www.banrepcultural.org/blaavirtual/revistas/credencial/junio2010/nueva-espanha.htm

This week’s reading was my favorite by far. I really enjoyed reading about Evita Perón, and to start talkig about the boom in technology and communications that was happening in Latin America. I think that the mass culture in radionovelas, movies, historietas, comic books, songs and even literature was a great expression of the people’s needs and the popular citizens of each country.

While I was reading about Lázaro Cárdenas and Eva Perón y felt like I was part of the people they had as followers, and they reminded me so much about Jorge Eliecer Gaitán, a populist leader in Colombia. I remembered feeling proud of being part of the middle class and even more proud to see that he was representing the lower classes. Maybe it was just empathy when I read the documents and the stories of this two leaders. I could definitely say that the crowds are moved when generous leaders approach them, when someone starts finally to care about their interest and also feel part of the people. Specially after everything that Latin American people had to go through before the populism started. Those leaders are remembered through time and even carried in people’s hearts.

I really admire Evita Perón and Jorge Eliecer Gaitán. Evita had a great contribution with the stablishment of her own organization: Fundacion Eva Peron. An institution of social help, to compensate the fact that she was not able to go to the precidence’s Sociedad de Beneficencia de Buenos Aires. She is such an important women for Latin America because she broke the stereotype of house hold pasive women had. She was really influential in the people and in politics. It can be said that her death lead in a big proportion the beguining of the end of the Peronista Regimen. Eva was always loved by  “los descamisados”, and every time she talked to the people, she showed honesty, compassion, selfness and great strenght. No one can deny that during the hard times, she was the one who was able to raise the voice and euphoria of the people to support the peronismo. 

One thing that I would like to highlight is the fact that all these leaders brought the people together after they were divided by the political interests. After reading the documents, I am left with the hope for leaders that unite people, nations and cultures for peace and a sustainable future.

This week’s readings started by mentioning an issue that Latin America has faced for a long time; describing the US role in Latin America. Coming from a Latin American country, and having learned history there, I can totally say that the US is 95% of the time protraid as a violent opressor, and the other 5% as an investor and cultural influence in the countries.

It was very interesting to read about the business of bananas in diverse countries of Latin America. Reading about Guatemala’s situation made me found another connection between Latin American countries, in Colombia, the huge influence of the United Fruit Company was also present. I can honestly say that when I read about the “Masacre de las Bananeras” in Colombia, performed by the United Fruit Company, I found the US companies repulsive, and all I felt angry and sad about what had happened. For the ones that dont know, this masacre occured in 1928, in Magdalena Colombia, when the Colombian armed forces opened fire against an undetermined number of  workers of the United friut Company that were protesting for the poor working conditions. The number of deaths is believe to be more than 1000. How can a country forget about the death of 1000 workers? how to forget that they were working for the US Company? and even worse, how to forget that was the local government who killed his own people under the influence of the US? Even today, when you visit Ciénaga, Magdalena, you can see banana plantations and some signs in rememberance of the masacre: as street grafity, or even publicity for some political parties. As a Colombian, I can’t take this memory lightly.  Colombian people dont forget those huge things easily. It is very hard to see the possitive impact of the US on Latin American countries when there is a very violent past.

The silent was video was one that balanced the negativeness of the US intervention on Colombia. The US provided aid to the friendly countries (as they are denoted in the book), in this case it was the Yellow Fever Vaccine. I consider that the help of the US in this case was much needed, a lot of people are exposed to Yellow Fever every day in Colombia, and if it wasnt for the vaccines, we would have had a lot of life losses.

I found very intersting the document by the Nicaraguan guerrilla leader, Augusto Sandino. The Political Manifesto has a very anti-imperialist view. In the Journey to the Banana Land video, I felt the whole story was told for an US American audience, and portrayed as a very benefical process. The last document was surprising, I really enjoyed the connections that Dorfman makes with the cartoons as a imperialist tools.

This week reading’s were a mostly centered on the social impact of the ups an downs of economy and politics on different countries of Latin America. I found really interesting how the author of the book connected the previous readings with this one. I can see how they all go hand in hand with one another; a sequence of events where the first one leads to the second one and so on. However, it is clear that this sequence of events has always been a roller coaster for Latin America, indeed “one person’s boom was always another’s crisis”-Dawson pg 141.

The rural population has always been one of the most affected and neglected by the government in every Latin American country.  This was the very first time where the rural population were more active and stand up for what they believed they deserved, and for their rights. Of course these rural movements brought violence, and civil wars. The case of Mexico was a sum of several revolutions, which fought for land and liberty, grievances angainst local landlords and government officials. For the first time we can see how indigenous communities participate in revolutionary movements, and after all, Villistas and Zapatistas both wanted freedoms and rights along with material possesios they no longer had. On the other hand, Argentina working class was the one that was fighting for their rights the most, asking for reduction in work day, better working conditions and sundays off.

This was the first time I read something political from Ruben Darío, and I have to say that he never dissapoints. His poem has this strength and he recognizes the huge intervention of the US. Emiliano Zapata, states basically the revolution came from the failure of Madero. Madero’s false promises were the thing that Zapatistas wanted to argue about.

Vasconzelos, have a lot of philosophical ideas, argues against the idea of superiority of razon, he is more about the idea of superiority of spiritualism. He tries to apply it to racial and esthetic ideas as a goal for revolutions. He talks about how evolution cant really define human beings, humans are moving towards perfection.

Maria T. Marxist. has the idea that If you try to educate natives you will always crash with latifundism. Land redistribution, breaking latifundios. But I kind of like how he talks about comunism of incas, a form of pro comunnimso in which land is equally shared, even when they liven in an authoritarian system. Thats more natural to the americas, there was no need to import european traditions. After all, the Incas build and empire their own.

uThis week’s readings were focused on the economic and industrial growth of Latin America after independence. Starting with a “Boom” I felt like everything was going so fast in Latin American countries, railways constructions, electricity, transportation ways, newspapers, photographs, women’s rights; all important, all suddenly happening in this land space that was not long ago the land of the indigenous people. While I was reading I felt as if Latin America had this huge urge for modernization and growth. I couldn’t stop thinking about the indigenous people, the slaves, and the low-income elites, and how they struggled in the mean time.

Order and progress. We have been pursuing this two goals for more than a century, I still think we haven’t completely reach them. There cannot be order if there is injustice and neglection, there cannot be progress if there is corruption and lack of education. Stability at a national level was hand in hand with the intervention of the state in small communities and the goal of modernization. Stability that was tried to achieved was one in which international investors saw the country as a potential investment. Of course all the foreign investments were beneficial for the country in the sense that they helped the development of the nations. It was inevitable that a strong dependance of foreign investmenst was developed in the Latin American countries. I think it was a dependance that still today has been difficult to overcome.

It is very importatn to recognize the impact of technology in this “Boom”. Industries  in Latin America lacked the capital, expertize and techonologies to produce goods for the international market, hence they produced for a small domestic market. This type of economy had export growth as its only viable way for profit growth. I wondered why nowadays we have not had a sufficiently big growth in order for out countries to start producing goods for the international market, very little has changed, and Latin American economy is still based on the exportation of natural resources. I am pretty sure it is because Latin America has encounter so many internal conflicts that havent had a complete resolution, and all of them add to the difficulties to move to modernism and improvement.  I am not even close to fully understand economics, but I really want to know if there is system that could fit into nowadays Latin American economy that would be benefficial for more than just a few.

Something that really hooked my attention was the title of “Porfirio Díaz, Hero of the Americas” since I have heard a lot of stories of disonfort and even disgust about the Porfiriato time. It was really interesting to read a different perception of Porfirio Díaz. The text was some sort of conversation with Díaz, and it was centred on the politics and democratic ideas of Porfirio Días. it was really interesting how he even mentions that he has nearly no opposition. I really look forward to discuss this text with the class and see if we can get annother perspective of this political leader.

This week’s reading start by mentioning the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, and how the caste and race were critical categories in the citizenship debates of the early republican period. It was a bit puzzling to read how the most enlightened group of people couldn’t see lower castes people as equal, and capable of handling any public job; “Whites are smarter, more rational, fitter to govern and to be citizens of any society” and still they were the ones who wrote the constitutions claiming universal citizenship rights.

One particular thing that amazed me was Cuban history. When I read that Cuban blooming economy enriched a growing number of free blacks, and they started becoming professionals and merchants with higher aspirations, I thought of how much potential Cubans have had (nowadays, they are excellent in medicine, arts, and sports) and how much they have been through. I was a bit sad and frustrating to read that all the improvements of the black slaves in Cuba were constantly undermined by the upper classes with the excuse of “fear of fomenting rebellion”. Emancipation was certainly a complex story of pressures from the outside world, from slaves themselves and internal elite conflicts.

I personally felt the first document a bit challenging to understand, and I had trouble deciding the position of the author. However, I got the idea of the author being a pedagogic figure, trying to understand the causes to the problem of understanding the practices of the African-American. The next document was the political program of the Partido Independiente de Color in Cuba, and that one I felt like education proposes were amazing, stating that education should be free and compulsory. I really liked the idea of education as a solution to almost every single problem and the fact that they were willing to bring education to the penitentiaries. I also really enjoyed the text of Santa Rita de Casia and San Lorenzo, I thought the first part was really thoughtful, and nice, where it stated that the human nature was the thing that makes us all equals. Then, It started with economy facts in Christianism, and I thought how religion is so influential in every aspect, yet we see so little about the human moral aspect.

The last two documents were relating the role of women. I really enjoyed “Brushtrokes” and I felt totally related at the beginning when the author felt so overwhelmed and was not able to pick a specific point to serve for the article. It clearly showed the frustration that women felt, and I could understand it, especially when the answer to this is the emancipation of women  seen in the last document. It is hard to believe that a woman like Josefina Pelliza was the one who wrote this specific reply, and not a man.

I really look forward to the discussion of this week’s lecture in class.

This week’s reading reminded me a lot about Colombian history. Caudillos were so important, that even nowadays, big parts of Bogota are named after them.  These political leaders were present where the people was not able to turn to the government or elite institutions, certainly, they were a very important feature of the colonial life. Politics influence every aspect of society; education, economy, and even religion, the caudillos played an important part of colonial life, and it definitely influenced the rural areas.

I agree with the readings when it says that it is difficult to talk about caudillos without talking about violence, territorial losses, and even economic difficulties. Caudillos are certainly one of the root causes of Latin America modern challenges. When I think about how long it took for Colombia to come up with an agreement to end up the civil war caused by the division between two political parties, liberals, and conservators, which were sort of founded by the division the caudillos had with the Urban Elites. This was the start of a sequence of events that led Colombia to struggle with insurgent groups like Las FARC, violence, and even more division. This is not only the case of Colombia.  Apart from this, I will dare to say that I like the idea of having a strong leader for a small portion of rural land. Sometimes, big central governments neglect the rural provinces, and they don’t have any way to make their needs present.

It seems to me that liberalism in Latin America was really idealistic and frustrated by a constant flaw in the political system. Maybe we are never going to be able to achieve it, but I also think it is worth trying and believing in what it proposes. I would really like to know more about the situation in Central America and Mexico,

One thing I absolutely agree with is the fact that independence cannot be told in general terms without silencing other valid ways of understanding it, or by losing the larger view of Latin America. I really appreciate the value that the author gives to each country’s independence, and his effort to compensate this dilemma. The lecture is focused on the ways that independence is narrated through Latin America. Each country has their own version of independence, their own “heroes”, their own celebration dates; however, the desire for freedom and national sovereignty  binds them together. 

After reading Simón Bolivar’s Letter from Jamaica, I wondered what would he said if he was alive right now. A few days ago, Colombia was voting for one of the most important peace agreements in its history, the plebiscite to end the internal conflict, after more than fifty years of civil war. Colombians were called to vote for the same principles that Simon Bolivar dreamt about; justice, liberty, and equality. As a Colombian, I could go on giving arguments on why I think the plebiscite should have passed, and also arguments on why people decided to vote against it. Instead, I am going to limit myself to say that the dream republic of Simon Bolivar was never there. Colombia has never been a united republic, nor one lead by justice, liberty or equality. And as sad and pessimistic as it might sound, this reality is not only true for Colombia, there are several countries in Latin America, if not all of them, that have been/are facing similar struggles. After reading this Letter I was left with a really bittersweet feeling, how is it possible that after all these years, we haven’t been able to step forward significantly? How can I complain or even say that my country is divided between a “SI” or a “NO”, when 63% of the population didn’t show up to vote? Is it that we are lacking a strong and determined leader like Simon Bolivar? or is it that our leaders are just too self-absorbed? Can we  really say that we achieved “independence”? One thing I completely agree with: “When success is not assured, when the state is weak, when results are distantly seen, all men hesitate; opinion is divided, passions rage and the enemy fans these passions in order to win an easy victory because of them”- Simon Bolivar’s Letter.

I have to say that I am impressed by the energy of how the Bolivar’s Letter and José Martí’s text are written. Both portrait their author’s beliefs and how strong they feel about America. I also envy their willingness and determination for a change, for democracy, for justice. Yes, they were ambitious, but after all that Latin Americans have been through, I honestly feel that now a days we lack leaders with these characteristics.

While I was reading Chavez’s speach I found a resemblance to Simon Bolivar’s Letter. It intrigues me the way he is talking in such a determined way, and also brings up issues that were occuring at that time. Also, I thought about how in Venezuela the population was split between whether to supporting Chavez or not, and the critic situation that Venezuela faced a couple of months ago, and keeps facing. It seems like the story keeps repeating over and over again. So, when are we safe to claim a complete independence? Knowing that it implies more than sepparating from other country’s mandate.

(If anyone wants to discuss Colombia’s Plebiscite, I am more than happy to have a conversation about it.)