This source will be very useful to our project, because it contains a lot of information on caudillos. It has a few paragraphs defining what a caudillo is and their role in Latin American history. It also lists some examples of famous caudillos from a variety of countries. This source is more academic and contains more facts than my other source, which is mostly opinion based. I think the examples of famous caudillos will be very useful for our project as well as the definitions and time periods the source gives us. It talks about how caudillos rose to power and how they were important in Latin American history. It even talks about how caudillism developed. I think this source has a lot of information we can use in the project.

“Caudillos in Spanish America 1800–1850 – Oxford Scholarship.” Caudillos in Spanish America 1800–1850 – Oxford Scholarship. N.p., 17 Nov. 2014. Web. 14 Nov. 2016.

In an article from Politico Magazine, Donald Trump is compared to the caudillos of Latin America. Since this source comes from a magazine, it may not necessarily be the most academic, but I think it is very relevant to our studies on caudillos. It relates Latin American history to the modern day United States and the issues we are facing today. The article compares Trump to many Latin American dictators and caudillos who reached a position of a government leader. It focuses mainly on Ecuador and their president, Rafael Correa. Trump’s political ideas are nothing like those of Correa, but his method of reaching power was very similar. Both men reached power through means very similar to those of caudillos. They motivated people to believe in them through charisma and promises of change, rather than through any political ideas or views they possess. Even though Trump represents the opposite of what we claim our country stands for, he has no experience in politics, and no political agenda, he was still able to gain power through solely his personality and the show he put on for people, much like caudillos. The article talks about the “Latin Americanization” of the United States and how our politics may be becoming more like those of Latin America. This article is very interesting, because it connects history with modern times as well as Latin America with the United States.

 
Wofford, By Ben, By Gillian Brassil, By Jack Shafer, By Marion Smith, By J.M. Berger, By James Higdon, and By Julie Sedivy. “Pinochet. Chavez. Trump?” POLITICO Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Nov. 2016

This week’s reading focused on the positive changes as well as the problems that occurred during the Gilded Age in Latin America. While much of Latin America experienced economic growth during this time, there were also a lot of social problems created. Many problems occurred with the rural and indigenous populations. These populations became more active in society due to these problems and civil rights movements began. This created civil wars and violence in many Latin American countries. The modernization of Latin American countries did not benefit all of their citizens equally. Porfirio Diaz can be seen as an example of the how this time brought both positive and negative changes all at once. He brought many positive changes to Mexico, helping it to modernize and become more economically stable. However, his government was a dictatorship due to the rigged election and it created the beginning of revolutions and civil wars within the country. This time in Latin America caused many changes to occur within both governments and society and it has greatly influenced Latin America today.

As someone who grew up in the United States, this chapter was very interested to me. It is shocking how little we are actually taught about even the history of our own country. Our government has interfered with so many countries, in Latin America and around the world, and we are barely taught anything about it. The overthrow of Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala is a good example of this. Jacobo Arbenz was making positive changes in Guatemala, but these changes interfered with trade between the U.S. and Guatemala through the company UCFO. It seems ridiculous to think that the United States overthrew the government of an entire country just for the sake of trading bananas. Another example of the United States meddling in Latin American politics is the Civil War in El Salvador. The U.S. supported the Salvadoran government while several communist states supported the rebel forces. We were never taught about these events in U.S. education even though our government played a large role in them. I am sure that there are many other events such as these that we also never learned about. It appears that the U.S. did not act as a “big brother” in these situations. The responsibility of a big brother would be to help less powerful countries succeed and build strong relationships with them. However, the U.S. appears to have only interfered with these countries for the purpose of only strengthening its own economy, regardless of what happens to the other countries’ governments and citizens.

This chapter was about the modernization of Latin America. Many countries in Latin America looked to Europe as an example of what a modern country should be. They wanted their countries to not only have more of modern values of Europe, but to also have a “feeling” of modernity. This can be seen even today in the styles of architecture from this time, which are similar to those of Europe. Many advances in transportation were also made, such as new railroads and wider roads. The chapter also talks about how many countries in Latin America began to rely on exports as a major source of their economy and how this could create problems.

Creelman’s interview with Porfirio Diaz was interesting. The way that Creelman describes Diaz shows the way he was idolized by so many people. Creelman put a lot of emphasis on even Diaz’s physical characteristics and described him as a hero to Mexico.

Until this reading, I was unware that Latin America had such a large population of slaves. In school in the United States, and probably Canada as well, we were never taught much about the history of other places and our classes made it sound as if the United States was the main cause of the slave trade in the Americas. We were barely told anything about slavery in Latin America and it was made to sound like a minor issue. From this class, however, it appears very possible that it was an even bigger issue in much of Latin America than it was in the United States. It seems that there was a larger population of slaves in much of Latin America, especially Brazil, than there was in the United States. It is interesting to me that we were never told anything about this and how one’s perception of history can be so different based on the details they are taught.

It was also interesting to read both of the feminist letters and compare them. Maria Eugenia Echnique and Josefina Peliza were from the same period in history and they both discussed feminist ideas. However, their ideas of what feminism should be are completely different and contradictory. Echnique believed that women were equal to men and should have the same rights. She thought they should be able to choose the kind of life they wish to live. Peliza believed that women were different from men and should not have the same rights. She believed that they are better suited to being caretakers for their husbands and children and that this is the life every woman should lead. The two women express entirely different ideas and yet both ideas are considered feminism.

It is interesting to look at the writings of Bolivar and Chavez. Even though they were written during different periods in history, they both express similar ideas. Bolivar’s Letter to Jamaica describes different solutions to gaining independence from Spain in Latin America and creating a government more suited to the area. During this time, many people in Latin America had begun to identify less with Spain and felt that Latin America should have a better system of government. However, there were some people, such as many criollos, who did not want to separate from Spain do to the fear of losing certain rights if a new system was created.

Decades later, Chavez’s speech references ideas similar to those of Bolivar. When Chavez gained power in Venezuela, the country was even renamed the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Both writings talk about how much of Latin America is governed by people who do not understand the needs of its citizens and how a new system of government that fits them is needed. Since Chavez’s speech is relatively resent, it gives the impression that some countries in Latin America, such as Venezuela, may still not have managed to create such a system. When I was in Spain, I met many immigrants from Venezuela who came to Spain to work because they could not provide for their families and continue to live in their own country. Throughout history, Venezuela (as well as some other Latin American countries) has gone through many different political systems and leaders. Chavez’s attempts to reform the government were successful at first, but later lead to increased poverty and violence in the country. Even through Chavez’s interpretation and manifestation of some of Bolivar’s ideas was not successful in creating a better government for Venezuela, Bolivar’s main idea (the need for a government that is suited for its country and citizens) in Letter to Jamaica could still be very relevant to the problems that face Latin America today.