In my opinion, throughout history, the United States has unnecessarily meddled in foreign affairs. I enjoyed reading Sandino’s “Political Manifesto”. I liked how he openly challenged the United States. The “Political Manifesto” was also saddening to me because of how Sandino explained that Díaz and Chamarro were traitors to Nicaragua. Time and time again, the United States has felt entitled to get involved in foreign affairs and some Latin American leaders have enabled them to do this. I found Sandino’s expression “ambition killed their right to their nationality” very telling. It is evident that when a political leader enables foreign involvement, it is usually because of ambition. I believe that this phrase has a lot of truth to it. The American government wanted dictators in Latin America while it praised itself for being a champion of liberty and democracy. This is clearly very hypocritical behaviour and attitude.I found this manifesto to embody a fervent nationalism. I liked how Sandino wrote about his Nicaraguan pride, and his ardent desire to defend his country.

The document “From the Noble Savage To the Third World”, really encapsulates the kind of stereotyping that is so often seen in American films. Although one may brush this stereotyping off, it definitely has an effect on how people see certain countries. People develop an idea of a country without having even visited it. I found the paragraph about “Aztecland” to be very interesting. The author mentioned several things that people readily associate with Mexico. This is how a country or an area of the world is “disnified”. I find that “disnifying” only perpetuates ignorance. The cultural richness, and social complexities of a country cannot be encapsulated in a “disnified” form. I find that the United States does this to several countries as a way of “othering” them. They stereotype a nation, as a way of minimizing that country’s achievements and history. By portraying a country in a simplistic way, they fail to recognize a country’s history, art, scientific achievements, social complexities, various ethnic groups, and much more. Watching the video. “The Journey to Banana Land”, reminded me of how rich Latin America is in natural resources. This richness in natural resources has garnered a lot of foreign attention especially from the United States. It is evident that some Latin American leaders have compromised the Latin American peoples’ best interests by agreeing to unhealthy foreign investment rather than a cooperative one. My question is: has Latin America’s political leaders’ ambition and corruption lead to unhealthy foreign trade relationships?

I really enjoyed watching the video of the conversation with Alex Dawson. It made me aware of the different facets of a revolution and how one cannot really name a “winner” in the Mexican Revolution. Before reading this week’s material or watching the video, I had a romanticized idea of both Emiliano Zapata and Pancho Villa. Quite honestly, I did not know much about them other than them being symbols of the revolution and the ongoing fight for justice in Mexico. Given my romanticized idea of them, it struck me when Dawson spoke about “the revolution eating its young”. I had never thought about how revolutionary leaders usually end up being killed young and so they do not have time to disappoint since they die as martyrs. This fact may seem quite obvious, however, it really made me think of revolutionaries with a less romanticized viewpoint.

I find it ironic how the political party (PRI) that sprung from the Mexican Revolution, definitely has not retained revolutionary values in the past administrations and presently. Despite the Mexican Revolution shaking things up, in many ways, the old system was reinstated in a different way. Although the Mexican Revolution did not bring ultimate justice to the country, it definitely paved the way in granting indigenous peoples their rightful land. The Mexican Revolution has also inspired millions of Mexicans by giving them an example to fall back on when they think, speak, and act on their revolutionary ideas. This is evident in the existence of the Zapatistas. It is upsetting to see that the fight for land and liberty is ongoing. The component of “The Old Guard” is a component that I believe still clearly exists in Mexico. There is a group of elite businesspeople and politicians who benefit from the status quo.

I really enjoyed reading Rubèn Darío’s “To Roosevelt”. I found the text quite emotional and it really intrigued me because of the various underlying themes. I liked how he called out the United States for their obsession with war. I especially liked the phrase “You think that life is a fire, that progress is an eruption, that the future is wherever your bullet strikes…No”. I believe this text clearly challenges the idea of modernity. Darío acknowledges several strengths the United States has but at the same time expresses that he does not believe the United States’ actions are progressive. I enjoyed this text because I liked how Darío questioned power so eloquently. To me, this is a brilliant example of how it is important to question political leaders and not simply accept the status quo.

I find it interesting that when a society becomes more secular, it becomes more modern. I am a firm believer that church and state should always be separated. I agree with Dawson when he says that Mexico becoming more secular led to a more inclusive environment. The Catholic faith was not introduced to Mexico in a peaceful way. The fact that the Spanish conquistadores built a cathedral over top a pyramid in what is now El Zocalo, is symbolic of how the Catholic faith was introduced into Mexico. I believe that secularization was essential in Mexico advancing because it was a step in further separating itself from its colonial past. I was really intrigued when Dawson commented on how Latin American elite felt that the general population was incapable to have true democracy and liberty. I agree with Dawson that one of the reasons this idea of “incapability” to have democracy existed was because it stemmed from the fact that Latin American nations were composed of people of different races and racism was still very prevalent in Latin American societies. It also struck me how Dawson discussed that Mexico was looking for a modern façade and not necessarily focused on the values associated with modernity. When Dawson said this, I drew parallels to the present situation in Mexico. From what I’ve seen in Mexico, it seems that politicians are keener on building new plazas, and improving high-end areas rather than tackling the issues of corruption and poverty. They seem to give this illusion of modernity with building high-end shopping centres, and new highways, instead of investing in social programs that help in eradicating the pervasive sexism and racism that exists in Mexico.

I believe that the concept of having to have order before progress was definitely passed down from colonial times. This concept reminded me of the caudillo age. I believe that the idea that order must be imposed from the elite still continues in many Latin American countries. In my travels to Mexico, this is noticeable even in interactions between upper class Mexicans and lower class Mexicans. I have noticed upper class Mexicans speak to lower class Mexicans as if they needed to be directed in order to perform any task properly. Reading the chapter made me see Porfirio Diaz in a different light. Growing up, I have watched documentaries on Porfirio Diaz as well as heard about him from my family members. I always had a positive image of him and saw him as someone who helped construct Mexico’s economic boom. It never occurred to me that Diaz’s actions did not necessarily benefit all members of Mexican society. In class I would like to discuss people’s impressions of Porfirio Diaz. Should Diaz be considered a Mexican hero?

It was difficult to watch this week’s video and read the documents for this week. Both the video and the documents brought about feelings of anger and sadness. It is astonishing to see the dark side of human beings. What particularly struck me was how recent slavery is. I definitely always think of slavery as a far off historical event and so changing my perspective and realizing how recent it is was extremely eye opening. Hearing about the quantities of Africans that were brought into the new world for the sole purpose of slavery was shocking. I did not realize that the amounts were so huge especially in comparison to the amount of Europeans that lived in the New World. Although, North and South America have advanced in fighting for racial equality, I do not think equality has been achieved. I believe the United States needs to fully acknowledge their history of slavery in their education system. They could learn from Germany and how the German education system honestly teaches students about the holocaust and the Second World War. It is disgusting to see that in 2017, there are neo-Nazi protests in the United States and that their president calls some of these protestors “fine people”. On the other hand, when NFL players protest peacefully about injustice for African Americans, the president immediately attacks them in a vulgar manner. This is just one example of the many instances of discrimination and the institutional discrimination that still exists in the United States.

Latin America also has much progress to achieve in its fight for racial equality. In my travels to Mexico, I repeatedly notice racist attitudes and comments that persist in their society. Furthermore, I notice that race and social class are intertwined in Mexico. Clearly, North and South America still have to work towards guaranteeing racial equality. I found the document “Women: dedicated to Miss Maria Eugenia Echenique” by Judith, laughable. The idea that women’s dignity would be diminished if they were to be emancipated is completely foolish and I cannot believe that someone would have written a document based on this idea. This document was a window into the past and showed how much we have evolved over the years. Machismo is still a major problem in Latin America. Unfortunately, countless sexist attitudes still persist among men and women. I believe that these sexist attitudes will only be fully eradicated once parents raise their children without gender bias and without passing down sexist attitudes. It seems that sexism is learnt in the home and so education is the best way to combat these toxic and harmful attitudes. I really hope that Latin America continues progressing in its fight to achieve racial and gender equality. Gender equality would help alleviate issues of violence, and poverty, and it is simply necessary because it is what is right. Every human being is equal and should not be subject to different treatment because of race or gender. I’d like to discuss whether anyone has noticed racism or sexism in their experience living or travelling in Latin America.

I have always romanticized the idea of independence. I never thought of the many ramifications of independence and so it was interesting to hear about how independence in Latin America did not bring stability or order. When learning about liberalism, and how many saw it as merely an “ornament” in society, I immediately though of the current political/social situation in the United States. The current changes in legislation in the United States are the exact opposite of the definition of liberalism. To me, the word liberalism is being used as an ornament in the United States. I do not see it as a free society where equality prevails, especially when their president is an outright misogynist and racist. I believe that post-independence Latin America was fertile ground for caudillos because normally during times of instability people look for some sort of direction. The politically unstable conditions as well as the long experience of armed conflict made post-independence Latin America ideal for the emergence of Caudillos. I liked how Dawson described Caudillos as providing a “sense of closeness and a fictive kinship” for their followers. Again, I related this to the current situation in the United States. I find that Trump has a fictive kinship with people in the working class of the United States. Just as the caudillos promised the poor that they’d have their back, Trump has done the same.

The concept of clientelism is something that is unfortunately still prevalent in many countries. When hearing about clientelism, the first thing I thought of was the relationship between the NRA and several American politicians. Suspiciously, gun laws are not a priority for politicians who have received monetary support from the NRA. This is evident modern day clientelisim. Clientelism is also still seen in many Latin American countries. Corruption was passed down through generations. It is astonishing to see how political and social patterns are repeated throughout history. I was surprised that the claudillo age led to popular and elite projects intersecting. If anything, I thought that the claudillo age would only further separate elite and popular projects. However, then I read that the marginalized groups were able to negotiate their inclusion through military service. The interaction between the elite and the marginalized had a price and that price was military service. This fact reminded me of how the Spanish conquistadores established the centre of colonies in areas with large indigenous populations in order to have a workforce. Similarly, the elite Latin Americans were employing the indigenous as their main workforce by allowing their inclusion only in exchange for their military service. Indeed, even in post-independence Latin America, the elite continued the work of the Spanish conquistadores. In class, I would like to discuss the question: did anyone think of present day examples of caudillo behaviour or clientelism?