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.