First, I will talk about the wooden leg of Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. I thought it was weird and funny how they talk about Santa Anna’s leg in the beginning of the chapter. Also, I liked that his leg is hold a symbol for both the North Americans and the Mexicans. To the North Americans, they leg symbolizes Mexico’s inferiority in controlling their destiny, while to the Mexicans it symbolizes a disaster caused by “their northern neighbors” (Dawson, p.47). It made me think that Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna, the Mexican President, is a significant person in Latin American history. After all he is a Caudillo
Caudillos were important people in the 19th century, they are described to be strong men and political leaders. They were all about defending their interests and the interests of their supporters (p.48). Not only was Santa Anna, the caudillo of Mexico talked about, but other caudillos in each Latin America were also discussed (eg. Ramon Castilla of Peru, Rafael Carrera of Guatemala, etc.). Though the era of the Caudillos was also about fighting for their people, this did lead to national disasters. After reading this, I do have mixed feeling towards the Caudillos. I feel they were somewhat heroic at the same time some of them caused trouble.
I totally agree with you and I enjoyed so much your comparison about how the americans and the mexicans think about Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna. I also think that sometimes caudillos are just looking for their own interest because in Mexico at least, this caudillo (Lopez de Santa Anna) sold many states to the United States of America so I think that he decided to save his life rather than saving his own country. Ultimately, I think most of the caudillos started to fight for a good cause but at the end they caused a national disaster just how you mentioned it before.
Hi Christine,
I had very similar perspectives on the Caudillos and how they shaped politics in Latin America. Going off of your point about how they fought for their people. I feel like some of them did, and they tried to voice the peasantry’s opinions as well. But from my understanding, a lot of the caudillos had hidden agendas and at times led by brutal force and dictatorship. So yes, it’s difficult to say that they were good or bad they were sort of both. Thanks for your post, it made me think about what kind of characters the caudillos were
After reading this I also have mixed feelings about the Caudillos. They were able to win so much popular support from the ordinary Latin American people, but were so corrupt and violent in the way they ran their countries. I really don’t understand how much of the poor supported the Caudillos, I’d be very interested to learn more on the subject.