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.