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.)