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?

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?