I cannot believe that this is my last blog post. I have really enjoyed learning more about Latin America! This has been an incredibly interesting and enjoyable class.

When watching the videos about the surge of left learning governments in Latin America, I couldn’t help but think of the hypocrisy of some leftist movements. Recently, I read an article about Nicolas Maduro appearing on Venezuelan television eating an empanada while the country is starving. How cruel and insensitive. Currently, a left leaning politician by the name of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador is pandering to the Mexican working class in order to secure his candidacy for the 2018 Mexican federal election. He named his political party “Morena” which has a special significance in Mexico as they refer to Mary as “Morena”. He will also be registering his candidacy on December 12, the day commemorating the appearance of La Virgen de Guadalupe to Juan Diego. Mexico is a predominantly catholic country, and much of the working class is very religious and so I see this as total pandering to the working class. The worry of some Mexicans, is that he will gain momentum with his appeals to the masses, but once in power will have a different agenda.

It is quite disheartening to read about how the Mexican government funded buildings were completely destroyed after the 1985 earthquake due to bribes avoiding correct building inspections. I was shocked to read about how a week before the earthquake the government declared the Nuevo Leon building in Tlatelolco apartment complex to be one of the safest buildings in the country. A week later, 600 people perished due to the collapse of this building. Without a doubt, corruption contributed to the amount of deaths in the 1985 Mexico earthquake. The Mexican people have learned to take matters into their own hands as exhibited by their behaviour in the 1985 earthquake and the recent September earthquakes. The people have come together, gathered supplies, donated supplies, rescued people, and gone into remote areas to help. Especially in the recent September earthquakes, the Mexican people did not rely on the government.

I enjoyed watching Dawson’s video on migration. I particularly liked his comment on O’reilly’s remarks being hateful and untrue. Honestly, I find it laughable that the rhetoric of migrants “taking American jobs” even exists. As Dawson said, migrants are a positive surplus to the American economy. My question is, has globalization contributed to the working class scapegoating foreigners?

The war on drugs is a war that I find quite hypocritical. Often, the blame is placed on Latin American countries for not being able to stop drug trafficking throughout the region. I believe that the consumers of drugs are also part of this issue. A demand for drugs maintains the suppliers in business. I find some US politicians to be quite hypocritical on this issue. They refer to Latin America as having complete responsibility for the drug trade without addressing the issue of drug addiction in the United States. Even el Chapo said in his interview that without him, the drug trade would continue because of strong demand from countries such as the United States.

I found Rita De Grandis interview regarding the Argentine military regime to be very interesting. It is horrific to think that governments have pushed authoritarian agendas via the disappearance of citizens. I particularly liked her comment on valuing our right to vote and how she explained that she lived a lot of her life without having the right to vote. I completely agree with her comment on how every citizen should value her or his right to vote and exercise it whenever possible. I often get frustrated when I hear my peers say that they did not vote simply because of laziness. One should not become complacent when it comes to exercising an essential freedom that we should all value.

I believe that the mother, and grandmother peaceful movement against disappearances is a very effective way of speaking truth to power. I find that in times of volatility, people are often moved through emotions. The “Mothers of the Disappeared” movement was effective in showing the toll that disappearances had on families. It brought out the emotion that is sometimes necessary in receiving attention from authority and the public. As Dawson says, these disappeared individuals were no longer seen as statistics. They were now seen as someone’s brother, sister, aunt, uncle, cousin, mother, or father. It was very disheartening to see that in the end, the Madres were targeted by the military regime and called “las locas”. I find that authoritarian regimes often attempt to claim that protestors are crazy in order to diminish the protestors’ grievances. It is angering to read that the regime went as low as to target and kill the mothers of the disappeared.

Reading about Reagan’s actions was also very angering. His backing for authoritarian regimes throughout Latin America is unacceptable. Those who refer to Reagan as a good president always perplex me. It is very saddening to read about feminicide throughout Latin America. I believe that feminicide is best eliminated through education, fair judicial procedures, and work safety laws. Pervasive sexist attitudes have to be eliminated through education (at all levels) in order to eliminate feminicides. I’d like to ask whether globalization has played a part in an increase in feminicides? I’d also like to discuss whether legalization and taxation of certain drugs in Latin America, Canada, and the USA could lead to the end of the drug war?

The document, “The Massacre”, really embodies the title of this week’s chapter. The description of the massacre that occurred in Peru’s countryside was horrifically violent. I had no idea about Peru’s Civil War and so this week’s video, readings, and documents were all very informative for me. I think that the last paragraph in the document “The Massacre” has a lot of truth to it. I really like the sentence “ It is difficult for people to defend a free press, elections, and representative institutions when their circumstances do not allow them to understand, much less benefit from, the achievements of democracy”. This sentence sums up the issue of representation in democracy. Evidently, if a group of people feel disenfranchised and excluded from democracy, they will not be keen to protect it. This exclusion is what leads to potential violent rebellion such as the one by the Uchuracchay peasants. Consequently, after these violent demonstrations, dictators such as Pinochet and Castro have risen to power under the premise of rebuilding the nation with law and order. I believe that this vicious cycle can only be solved through listening to the groups that feel exclusion from their country’s democracy. Without listening to their grievances, and implementing legislation that addresses these grievances, there will always be social resentment that can turn to a violent movement at any time. Again, this made me think of the current situation in the United States. An angry working class has turned violent and voted for a disgusting candidate because he successfully tapped into their anger. This working class felt excluded from their country’s democracy and so they have resorted to anger and violence.

Fujimori’s 1992 Declaration of the Autogolpe, was clearly focused on gaining the support from Peruvians that have felt excluded by their country’s democracy. There were some phrases that I did not like as they are very authoritarian in my opinion. I really did not like it when he praised the Peruvian peoples’ “self-sacrifice” in restoring the nation. I do not agree with the idea that sacrifice, and suffering is necessary to the advancement of a nation because often it is the working class people that partake in this sacrifice while those governing praise from a position of privilege. It is extremely hypocritical and classist. Fujimori’s Declaration of the Autogolpe seems like an ode to the idea that an iron fist is required to govern a nation efficiently. I’d like to ask whether other students found Fujimori’s praise of self-sacrifice hypocritical?

Since Chavez appointed Maduro as his natural successor, many Venezuelan politicians assumed Maduro would easily become president. However, this was not the case. After Hugo Chavez’s death, Nicolás Maduro came to power through an unexpectedly close election in April 2013. He is a member of the political party founded by Hugo Chavez, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela. Henrique Capriles, Maduro’s opponent, never conceded because of the many doubts regarding the legitimacy of the election. Ever since this election, Maduro has struggled in living in the shadow of Hugo Chavez. President Maduro is facing a series of obstacles including: infrastructure breakdowns, electricity shortages, extreme inflation, scarcity of essential consumer items, violent street crime, and an overvalued currency. The Maduro administration’s excessive spending on social programs, alienation of the private sector, corruption, lack of investment in infrastructure and oil production has put the country in a precarious position.

Currently, Venezuela is in a crippling economic crisis that has led to a lack of basic goods and high food prices. President Maduro claims that the economic crisis is the result of a US-backed capitalist conspiracy. President Maduro also claims that the opposition is conspiring with foreign entities, specifically the United States, to destabilise Venezuela. On March 30^th, 2017, the political turmoil in Venezuela reached its peak. Venezuela’s Supreme Court magistrate sided with President Nicolás Maduro, and decreed that it would take over the opposition-led Congress’ legislative powers. Opposition parties saw this as a move to establish a dictatorship. This move by the Supreme Court magistrate set off a series of protests throughout Venezuela. Security forces violently controlled the protests that occurred the day after this decision. Although the court quickly reversed its decision, protests have continued.

Unlike Chavez, Maduro has been unable to establish a strong bond with the chavistas of Venezuela (supporters of Hugo Chavez). Since this bond has not been re-established, Maduro has resorted to authoritarianism and maintaining an offensive attitude in spite of deteriorating economic conditions in Venezuela. One example of Maduro’s authoritarianism is his actions in November 2013. Maduro ordered the National Guard to invade electronic and retail stores and force shopkeepers to sell their products at highly discounted prices (in some cases up to 70% off). Looting broke out in some of the locations. Even members of the National Guard began looting. This extreme reaction from the Venezuelan people was no surprise since the country’s inflation rate had risen by 50% in the past year. Maduro then targeted the automobile industry and landlords in the same way. He pledged to lower car prices and rents. Aware of the unrest in the country, Maduro even called for the creation of a ministry of happiness. This was criticized as a highly political move to attempt to cover the instability in Venezuela. Consumers are currently paying dearly for the government’s continued war on the private sector. Capital continues to flee the country, the black market flourishes, and supermarket shelves are empty. Venezuela is suffering and faces an uncertain future.

I found that this week’s readings, podcasts, and video really demystified the word “populism” for me. I found that populism became a buzzword during the 2016 US elections. After learning the meaning of populism, I noticed it in this week’s documents. I noticed in both Eva and Juan Péron’s words and actions. I first noticed it when Eva said “as General Péron says, we will do what the people want”. It is clear that her and Juan were keen on appealing to the masses. When I first heard about populism, I thought it would be regarded in a positive manner. To me, it seemed good that politicians were speaking in a simpler way in order to be easily understood by all people. It also seemed good that these so called populist politicians wanted to vouch for the interests of the working classes. The definition of populism is the concern for ordinary people.

I remember watching Obama’s speech at the summer 2016 North American summit where he explained that he is a populist unlike Trump who has no real regard for the working class. Obama questioned why a man who has always shown little regard for the working class, was suddenly being referred to as a populist. I really liked how in this rant, Obama explained the definition of populism and how Trump did NOT fit this definition at all. After reading the actual definition of populism, I was perplexed as to why in many people’s eyes, this word is used in a negative manner. Politicians seldom like to identify as populists. I believe that the word now carries a negative connotations because of leaders who rose to power by claiming to be populists and then went on the become dictators who did little for the working class. Presently, this is evident in the United States. Trump appealed to the working class with his simplistic language, and promises of “bringing back jobs” yet during his presidency, he has only further marginalized the working class. A true populist is one who is genuinely concerned and involved in improving  the lives of ordinary people. For this reason, I believe that the word populist should stop being used in a negative manner.

I really enjoyed reading Evita’s Final Response. This speech brought insight into her character. It became more clear to me why the working class loved Evita so much. The way she appeals to them and repeats her devotion to the Argentine working class throughout the speech explains why she was so well-regarded among the masses. I did not know much about Evita Péron before this week. I have become very interested in learning about Evita’s life and so I will continue to do my own research on the topic. My question for this class is why do we think the word populism has a negative connotation for many people?