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.

After reading both readings, I was a bit confused about the Catholic religion, the dominant religion in Europe. On one hand in the 18^th century, Casta Painting were considered to be offending according to Andrés Arce y Miranda as they would confirm creole inferiority assumptions. However, in the 17^th century, gender switching was even exempted by the Pope from the immediate obligation of law as Monja Alferez/Catalina de Erauso/Antionio or Alonso Diaz/Francisco was forgiven. This surprised me the most since a lot of times religion is followed to the letter, and even used as an excuse to fight against others as we saw in last weeks’ readings with Atahualpa and Fray Vicente. The fact that Spanish Catalina de Eurauso got a popal dispensation to keep dressing as a man provided she remained a virgin and Atahualpa for simply wanting to believe in his own God was captured and killed bewilders me.

Additionally, many contemporaries except for people like Arce y Miranda believed Casta Paintings offered a positive image of Mexico and America as well as Spanish Imperial rule. Were the Casta Paintings so powerful and influencing at that time that it could change the way Spanish thought about indigenous people? For me, this had already been clearly established centuries ago through the colonization process of America and Casta Paintings were a simple representation of that type of thinking. Although I do understand why it could be seen as a continuation of that type of thinking that many wanted to eliminate, the colonizing process was still an important and life-changing moment in history that still persists today. Growing up in Lima, I have heard comments, studied and worked with indigenous communities and listened to personal accounts of racism in modernity.

The fact that a transgender nun in Spain is forgiven and even granted gratitude for her willingness to fight in America (killed many, lied, and practically broke many of the religious rules of that time) but that indigenous people who were living a different reality than Europeans were punished with slavery, death, captivity, mistreatment for doing what they’re sustaining environment had taught them to do (believe in the Sun, spirits, community, etc) is still very confusing to me.

What I really enjoyed about these readings was the fact that one was through the perspective of a Quechua noble man and the other through a European explorer and colonizer—two sides of the conquest. I found this to be very helpful in understanding the historic moment that transformed the entire continent of America. Both readings agree on the fact that the European invaders had a strong fascination with gold, and this was strongly emphasized throughout both Poma de Ayala and Colombus’ outlooks. Why is it that Europeans so badly wanted to seek gold—something materialistic and impermanent in their lives that would feel them with more greed and hunger for more?

What struck me the most in both readings was the strong motivation of the Europeans to impose and enforce the Catholic/Christian religion on the “Indians” and Incas. Respect for others’ beliefs is forgotten on both sides: Atahualpa throws the holy bible to the floor and Colombus states that the Indians as he calls them are “people who would be more easily converted to our Holy Faith.” They don’t even give each other a chance to converse and share their different perspectives on religion and talk about the morals behind them or even about its origin or the reason of belief.

Religion is a huge part of peoples’ lives, something they spiritually connect with and can relate to on a daily basis. When that is taken away from someone, the meaning of life to that person becomes difficult to grasp. To me, imposing religion on other people simply defeats the point of even having that spiritual connection to anything. Most religions are based on moral theories that come about in how people act or even think about others and the world. So how is it that religious people such as Fray Vicente and Christopher Columbus can think its okay for one to remove that spiritual aspect of a person and replace it with what they think is spiritually correct?

What I also noticed in Cummins’ article was Colombus’ reaction to the new “green, fertile, great woods” land he was stepping on. It almost seemed like places like these were rare or even lucky to see in Europe—a civilized society. Is it because civilized societies loose their connection with nature as they focus more on the needs of humans and less on the rest of the entities on Earth?

My name is Cody Alba and I am currently going into my third year of Global Resource Systems in the faculty of Land & Food Systems. Having moved to Lima when I was three and growing up there until my return to Canada for university, Peru has been and will always be the country I call “home.” Over the years, I have become highly interested in the relationship between ecology and culture. Learning about people who have different values and beliefs stemming from their interactions with the Earth astonishes me. More recently, I have become curious with the idea of sustainable agriculture and therefore would like to learn more about the connection different cultures have with the Earth, specifically those from South America. I look forward to this class as I feel like it will provide me with a basic foundation of the history and development of the Latin American culture, allowing me to better understand its connection with nature.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!