Week 13: Towards an Uncertain Future

4 Replies

Hello!!

As my final post, I really wanted to focus on a wrap-up of everything we have learned, especially in regards to outside influence in Latin America. As we have seen through this week’s documents as well as Jon’s discussion on corruption and how it opens up possibilities, Latin America is still often considered by westerners as ‘blank slate’ where anything can take place and the rule of law of another country must be implemented in order to get people to listen to injustices, like it happened with the Texaco case.

The legacy of corruption, misuse of the environment, wars, and other largely negative experiences have plagued Latin America for centuries and it will certainly continue to take place, as one cannot escape their past. However, it is so worth remembering that the ‘Kodak’ images of ‘happiness’ often portray individuals or groups in Latin America living their lives or celebrating calendar events. I mention this because more than anyone else, in my opinion, Latin Americans are resilient and will never stop fighting for what they believe is right. It is narrowing down the focus of ‘what is right’ within each country that has to be worked on, since the area’s past has created such division, but in a large part  from what I have lived and what we have studied, Latin Americans are fighters and do not stop living because the conditions they are in are less than ideal.

I think there is a lot we can learn from Latin American’s past and present. We live in a country that presents itself as a haven for immigrants and refugees, but have so much to work on. Canada covers its dark past and ignores it in a large part, rather than engaging with it head on like Latin Americans have had to do in many instances. There is much we can learn from Latin America and it’s time we listen…

 

Week 12- Truth to Power

Leave a reply

I am very interested in the way that the media was used during the times of the War on Drugs or the disappearance of the children for the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo  or the Aguas Blancas Massacre,  which I think is something Dawson explores as well.

To begin with, it is interesting that the documents this week were mostly videos, which in itself prompted me to ask what role does the media play when there is political and social injustice in a country?

In the case of the War on Drugs, the media has played to both parties because there was a heavy amount of propaganda used by the USA government to make the cause seem worthy, but a lot of media has come out recently highlighting what a colosal waste of money the initiative was. For the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, the media was seen as the only ‘way out’ of the corruption of Argentina by the mothers of children who were never to return, yet no one would help. Finally, in the case of the Aguas Blancas Massacre, the media put a spotlight to the corruption and outright lies from the Mexican police and was the conduit that led to the opening of a Human Rights investigation.

This of course is all very interesting, but how can media interest people about issues that they don’t care about? How many North American or European youth, outside of classes like LAST 100, are aware of the massacres  in Latin America? Personally, I think that this chapter and week most specifically highlight the responsibility that we ALL have in caring about issues that take place right under out noses and that ‘historic’ events have impacted people that are very much alive today, so they are not historic at all.

“Power to the People” Research

Leave a reply

For one of my group’s sources on “Power to the People”, I have chosen:

Plotkin, Mariano Ben. 2002. Mañana es San Perón: A cultural history of Peron’s Argentina. Wilmington, Del: Scholarly Resources.

This book goes beyond the exploration of the political tools and manipulation used by Peron’s populist government and looks into the social and propagandist aspects of his party. Although our group will most definitely look into the charismatic nature of Juan and Eva Peron and their political success’ dependency on their relatability  and charisma, this book looks into the ways in which their government propelled the mass mobilization of people with Peronist ideas and social structures and institutions. This book examines the divisive dynamics of the “us and them”, which will also be researched by our group, but looks further into the way the division allowed for the reinforcement of Peronism social ideas.

The success of Peronism was due in part to its integration into people’s everyday lives. Peronist ideals were integrated into the public school system, as well as into statutory holidays, and into social groups geared towards women, youth and the less privileged in society. Plotkin focuses on media tools that were massively used by this government as well as the social pressure created to have people follow them. Argentina became a country in which your political allegiance would highly influence your academic and career opportunities due in part to the social culture of Peronism.

It is undisputed that Juan and Eva Peron are probably the most well-known Argentine political figures throughout the world today. It is also definitely worth researching that Juan Peron brought issues like rights for women, children and workers into the Argentine elite’s scope of vision, which no political leader had ever done before. Due to their very divisive following, Plotkin looks into the air of romanticism and mysticism that followed this couple well through Eva’s death and continues on until this day. It is this legacy, that will also be explored, that has made room for a book like Plotkin’s to be researched; looking into the deeper social fissures as well as bonding that came out of Peron’s populist governments.

I believe that Plotkin’s book is extremely beneficial for my group’s research of populism in Latin America because it focuses on the social sphere of a very politically dense subject. Aside from making it more understandable and relatable to its audience, Plotkin also highlights the manipulation that did take place during Peron’s governments, which mostly occurred because his populist ideas were internalized by a large part of the Argentine population.

Week 10: Power to the People

1 Reply

Unfortunately, as an Argentine-born, this is a topic that I can say very little about from an objective and untainted point of view.

A couple of things that are worth noting about the Peron’s but primarily about Evita is that she is STILL romanticized and adored today. Many people make the ‘pilgrimage’ to her family’s mausoleum in the elite and illustrious Recoleta Cemetery in Buenos Aires (worth the trip if you’re down there- see picture attached). The mausoleum is still decorated with flowers from visitors and tour guides make a point of telling you the Duarte’s are buried there. She is also on both sides of the Health Administration building of Buenos Aires. It is said that she is ‘speaking to the people’ facing the North of the city, where the wealthier part of the city is and she is smiling to ‘her people’ to the South of the city. This building is in the smack middle of downtown Buenos Aires in the middle of the second-widest avenue in the world, 9 de Julio.

As for the documents this week, I think they really highlight just how varied versions of the same ‘scene’ can be. We will probably never know verbatim what was said during her speech, but it is clearly not for a lack of trying. I believe that no one runs for or marries into politics if they do not want some sort of attention from it, whether it be to get recognition for themselves or the causes they claim to represent.

I think the whole conversation we had in class about ‘heroes’ is really pertinent to his discussion about populism and Eva and Juan Peron. It was said that heroes are often considered heroes because they die before they can be considered anything else. I believe that is exactly what happened to Evita. She died in such a devastating and dramatic way, gave her final speech before the nation while needing to be held up by Juan, and the mysticism around her embalmed body allowed for her to never become anything else but a national hero (for some).

Juan on the other hand, got to live quite a contradictory life that became highly scrutinized simply because he lived longer…and because he really was a living contradiction.  However, I wonder what would have happened with Evita’s reputation if she had not died in such a tragic and publicized manner? Would the Peron’s live on to be just another President and First Lady of Argentina? Would their corrupt actions be swept under the rug (like so many before and after them-regardless of Party) and just become the Argentine norm?

Week 9: Commerce, Coercion, and America’s Empire

2 Replies

I was super interested by how Dawson views the American intervention in Latin American as not fully a military one, but an often welcomed cultural component. I personally remember watching El Gaucho Goofy  and really thinking it was funny because it certainly did reinforce the stereotypes that already are present in many porteños’ (people born in the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires) minds, aside from the fact that its a genuinely funny and cute film if one does not watch it with a critical eye.

This week’s topic really begs the question of how much influence is too much influence when speaking in the context of ‘from a world power to a non-world power.’ I think that this topic is relevant today, especially in relation to social media, TV, and fashion. I do understand the point of view of wanting to keep a Latin American country (or a country in any part of the world) ‘untouched’ or ‘authentic’, especially when addressing issues like tourism or new infrastructure projects like resorts and hotels (not saying I think this way but I understand why someone would. However, I really think that Dorfman and Matterlart give a bit too much power to Donald Duck’s cartoons or any sort of cultural media.

Much like Dawson states, the cartoons and films were widely accepted by Latin American audiences and although I do understand Dorfman’s point of view,  to have someone who has grown up and studied in the USA tell Latin Americans that they should critique Disney cartoons seems odd to me. I think the specific passage we were given is a quite surfaced-based, pointing out the well known fact that Disney has a racist past (and sometimes present). Although I do agree with many of his arguments in a number of his works, especially those pertaining to human rights and the transition to democracy by many nations, I have always been ‘bothered’ (for the lack of a better word) that he is an individual that was born into a privileged Argentine family, received all the academic benefits of studying in North America, yet goes back ‘home’ to preach about his ‘findings’ while living in the cultural imperialist USA. Is it not more important to critique the American producer of this material (ie. Disney or its American audience) than to put this responsibility on solely Latin American audiences? America is definitely a cultural imperialist, but who are we as academics to tell people what they should consume and how?

Week 8: Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age

6 Replies

I apologize for my lateness.

This week I was very struck by how humans constantly try to make sense of what is happening to us. The export boom in Latin America was so huge and so impacting in people’s everyday lives that the effects of it could not be ignored, and thus had to be rationalized. The global influence of other nations also struck me, as many of the Latin American revolutionary unrests came from what seen to be the success of the Russian Revolution and the economic influence of the United States upon Latin America.

The constant disappointment of unfulfilled promises in the political sphere that trickles down to people’s lives can often really fire people up to want to change current processes and revolt. I think one of the largest ‘problems’ per se, in almost all revolutions are that either there are too many sides that are fighting at the same time about different things, or there are not enough sides that fully represent what individuals may want and have a VERY narrow political agenda.

I very much enjoyed Dawson’s conclusion that no one really ‘wins’ a revolution because either some are more represented than before or not at all. That in itself sounds so very disappointing when you’re often risking your life or your job to fight for something you believe in, because like he said, no one chooses to take up arms willy nilly, but a lot of thought and effort goes into it.

Revolutions come out of necessity, but I wonder if better organization would lead to the ‘success’ of a revolution. How do you get recently-arrived immigrants to understand your fight? How do you get indigenous peoples that are constantly marginalized to want to revolt (without the racist connotations we came across this week?) If the leaders of revolutions are romanticized because they die young, do people really revolt without any deeper political agenda? How do we measure the ‘success’ of a revolution anyway?

Week 7 – The Export Boom as Modernity

Leave a reply

Unfortunately, this week I was not very inspired by the subject that we discussed because it seems to be all too similar to what we have now happening in our world. Dawson explains how Latin America had resources that were desired by the big ‘World Powers’ and just by looking at Latin American countries today, it is clear that the extraction of resources did very little good to the countries from which resources were and continue to be extracted.

Even in the Amazon today (as a concrete example), the same systematic exploitation of the environment continues to take place. Perhaps the workers do not live in plantations, but many live in reserves and continue to be exploited by their own governments as well as foreign intervention. The view that one leader or foreign investors have a more well-rounded knowledge than indigenous peoples continues to be present today. When Creelman says, “that the nation is emerging from ignorance and revolutionary passion” (130) it really reflects the notion that those from outside of Latin America know better than those who have been living there for thousands of years.

I say this because the parallel between Mexico then and Brazil today are very strong. The current Brazilian president has dissolved an indigenous reserve larger than the size of Denmark with the hopes of pushing the country forward through mining projects and essentially, the exploitation of the environment.

I wonder what can we do, as young academics to promote ‘modernity’ in a positive way? I personally have an interest in law and think that many indigenous groups can benefit from a sense of protection through the amending and addition of laws within a number of constitutions…if done CORRECTLY (aka- in talks and real discussions with indigenous groups) . I think Bolivia is definitely a country that can teach us about the integration of ‘the rights of nature’ within the constitution, which can lead to a less ‘human-based’ way of looking at life, business, and our environment and can really put the focus on the environment and ethical ways of carrying out projects.

For an easy read on the dissolving of the Renca reserve: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/24/brazil-abolishes-huge-amazon-reserve-in-biggest-attack-in-50-years

Week 6- Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics

Leave a reply

Hello!

This week I was so intrigued by the comparison between Latin American citizenship and rights discussion versus Canadian citizenship and rights discussion. Although I am originally from Argentina, my academic knowledge of this subject is much more centered in the Canadian indigenous perspective due to the direction my academics have taken me.

One of the things that were mentioned in the lecture video, which I so agree with is the fact that rights must be first agreed upon (by all parties). The brackets are important, because as Professor Beasley- Murray mentions, Caucasian males are often propelled to the forefront of historical events or processes without acknowledgement of the marginalized communities that are physically at the front.

One of the first things that I was taught at UBC Anthropology was the fact that we all view the world through our own culturally constructed lens, whether we are aware of it or not. Thus, I, a Caucasian female who has never lived in a First Nations reserve cannot assume that I understand their struggles no matter how much I think I do. Today, I would never dare to tell a Bands or Nation how I think they should construct their political and social narrative, because I am aware that I am just an outsider working and learning with these communities. However, at the time of independence in many Latin American countries, effect  which have continued into the present day, many political leaders who have never even physically gone to the marginalized parts of their perspective countries or fully understand their time-specific struggles, are in charge of constructing laws that are supposed to ‘protect’ them or even to help them ‘develop’ or ‘prosper’. How is this possible?!

In Canada, many Nations are self-governed. They make a lot of decisions within themselves and some groups rarely even ask for government intervention other than some financial aid when needed. These groups also get tax breaks or independent fishing and hunting laws (these are small things that I mention just to make the whole discussion less abstract). However, in Argentina for example, Bands struggle to even get political recognition within the ever-revolving governments, much less do they ever get serious and independent self-government or any other sort of ‘benefit’. I truly do think that a large reason for this is the political and economic instability of so many Latin American countries. Because these countries are constantly trying to rebuild themselves, so many other issues are put before indigenous issues, which continues a never-ending suffocating cycle of minority group neglect and rejection within their own geographical borders.

Although in other countries in Latin America indigenous groups are recognized by their governments, like I mentioned previously, they are often ignored, taken from their land, or their land is taken from them or severely damaged through ‘development projects’….what do you think are immediate things that should be improved?

—Within the discussion of the impacts of trans-Atlantic slavery in Latin America, do you think that there were any benefits ‘imported’ to Latin America? Perhaps in the field of technology or economy?

I am genuinely curious as to what everyone thinks so I appreciate your replies! 🙂

 

Week 5- Caudillos Versus the Nation State

1 Reply

This week I was very intriguing because as we can see in the news and other outlets, liberalism continues to struggle to bloom successfully in Latin America. In my opinion, one of the main positives, but disadvantages in the case of Latin America, of liberalism is that it needs a strong sense of ‘self’, as Professor Beasley-Murray mentioned in his video lecture. There needs to be, an often unwritten list of ‘do’s’ and ‘don’ts’ to carry out a liberal system that successfully encompasses and acts out liberal ideas.

As we have seen through the course and I’m sure will continue to see, this is something that Latin American countries severely lack. There is not a ‘one size fits all’ version of what liberalism should be, and thus each country, including Britain, the USA, and Canada have had to construct their own picture of what they wanted their country to look like through a liberal lens. This is why colonialism and its ideologies continues to be part of our social and political discussions, because it was often these ideas that became the base for what these countries look like today, since only one narrative is often chosen to appear in the spotlight. Some of the main problems in Latin America unfortunately have been violence and corruption, which have not allowed for this ‘unified’ narrative to ever even begin its conception stage.

When discussing caudillos, I think they are a very smart way of getting one point of view to become adopted by several groups of people. The authoritarian way in which policies that were developed by caudillos do certainly create an idea of one narrative, whether people agree with it or not. That is when the peer pressure can come in. If your neighbours and bosses all believe in one political or military figure that already has control of the territory in which you live, do you really want to go against that? This question is not to be answered through our already established 21st century liberal point of view that an institution like UBC has surely instilled in most of us, but rather try to answer this as a mulatto or black peasant in 19th century Buenos Aires, for example. Much like Professor Beasley-Murray and Dawson discuss, Rosa created a sense of  community, even though perhaps fictive, within people that was not easy for liberalism to break.

In “The Slaughterhouse” by Echeverria, a lot of the blame and responsibility is actually put on the people that backed the caudillos, but not necessarily directly on the authoritarian system that was in place. Do you think this was an effective choice by the author? If you had been a supporter of the caudillos system, would you have found this effective, and why?

Week 4- Independence Narratives

1 Reply

“How do you get people who do not care about your existence to listen? Is revolt the only way?” That was my first question when I thought about Latin American independence. This week I will be mostly focusing on Simon Bolivar’s piece, because I was really struck by its originality in the sense of the choice in which Bolivar depicted Latin America.

I was mostly surprised and at the same time very uncomfortable by how Bolivar makes Latin America seemed less like an abused step-son as he alludes to, but more like a spouse. In his essay he continuously says that the region is able to be independent and break free, but that at the same time it cannot be done so right away. He says that, “[t]he American states need the care of paternal governments to heal the sores and wounds of despotism and war” (24). Although he says Americans hate everything about “greed[y]” (23) Spain, he still says that Latin America needs Spanish ‘help’ or ‘aid’ to reach proper independence. By not being able to define what independence is, but only saying that an absolute leader is a priority, he leaves a lot of room for speculation and misuse of his words (which I’m sure critics of Chavez say that is precisely what he did in his speech many years later).

In his essay he says that the Americans have about as much say and freedom in their politics than slaves. Bolivar turns to Latin America’s history in order to drive home the point that Americans have really never had a choice in their government structure or how the laws that were made and made official in Europe would be enacted down south. This is a really effective way of making people aware of how little freedom they have (in Latin America) and how little freedom they are giving them (in Spain).

Although he says that the Americans have been excluded for too long and almost makes Latin America sound weak, he says this all with a very strong voice. I guess I was mostly confused by this juxtaposition. It may be because I am reading it much later in time, but it sounds like Bolivar does a lot of complaining without any concrete suggestions. However, it does not go over my head that the anti-colonial message itself was really pushing the boundaries, it still lacks concreteness in my opinion.

I guess to answer my first question, one method to get people to listen is to write a fairly broad yet poignant letter with some pretty serious yet fair accusations and see what happens!

Considering that Bolivar was a criollo and belonged to a higher tier of colonial society…Is it because his goals of how to reach independence are broad that his  letter resonated with so many people? Did it give people a loud, yet blank canvas to make up their own idea of how to reach independence and its benefits? (I know canvases can’t be loud so my own metaphorical use of idioms failed me)