I found this reading to be very interesting as I come from the Latin American culture but don’t know much about how its history has shaped it. At the beginning of the reading, I was able to clearly understand the “fragmented consciousness” that is described in Mexico City where the wealth gap is very much evident. Having lived in Lima for most of my life, I was able to actively see the clear boundaries that Dawson believes we should go beyond to be able to make sense of the world. Even belonging to the same city, the two regions described by Dawson are characterized by a completely different and separate culture. For this reason, I believe it is very hard to define Latin America as was realized during the first day of class because assuming that it’s the same everywhere in Latin America is a mistake.
Latin America is explained to have gained independence through a series of long processes, almost with a triggering effect. As Latin American countries fought against their colonizers, the revolutions began to spread eventually to the point that independence was met. It was almost like a big wave, where one after the other, people started claiming for their rights and fighting against colonization, feeling freer than ever.
I can strongly agree with Troullot’s words: “… history is not what happened, but it is what is said about what happened.” I would even say that the history of today is currently being written mainly from a modern western point of view. Although one can find books written by First Nations peoples who talk about their own history through their own perspective, these are not easily found and are not easily acknowledged by general textbooks today. This is especially important because we tend to think everything we learn about history is true, and considering the perspective it is coming from is extremely important as it defines how and why the world was seen in that way. Every country in Latin America has a different story regarding their independence, and all these multiple perspectives cannot be combined to form just one—generalizing an entire continent does not consider the importance of each and every entity that makes it up.
I like the parallel you’re drawing of Troullot’s ideas with modern-day history writing, and also how the same can be said about First Nations. I wonder what sort of an image future generations and civilizations will form about our own. It also makes me wonder if there is any way to change human nature and society so much that even the smallest accounts of events, from defeated parties and so on, will be included in history books, even if these stories go against the triumphant party’s own story? Hope that makes sense.