Unlike previous readings, Dawson’s Chapter 3 invoked very entangled emotions. I don’t want to be sentimental about the past , yet the history of Latin America, as well as many others, saddens and upsets me. In retrospect, it’s somewhat peculiar to me that people should have thought in a certain way in history. For instance, how could science be used to justify injustice and hatred? How could people think slavery was natural and moral? However I then start to ask, what is justice? What is natural? And moral? Their definitions are forever changing, and there is always a different perspective to what is right or wrong. While slavery was later deemed immoral, its contribution to economic development and even civilization was undeniable. What’s equality? Haven’t Animal Farm taught us the invariable truth that “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”? What’s freedom and what’s its boundary, if any?

It’s also sad to see how people fought for their interest yet not obtaining it. Sometimes their effort was counteractive. For instance, “the more Afro-Cubans demanded rights, the more Cubans were subjected to stories of strange rituals and the kidnapping of white children.” There seemed no better way though. Would their demands be met more easily if they had not fought so undauntedly or perseveringly? Probably not either. Besides, sometimes the group is divided within on what they should pursue, as was the case of Argentine women. How could one female convince another with totally different standpoint?

Speaking of the feminism issue represented in documents 3.4 and 3.5, I would not argue, although it would be easy for us modern people to affirm that a woman can be both a professional and a loving wife and mother. The key idea, I think, is still “freedom”. Women, just as men, should be FREE to choose their path. They could opt to work if they were qualified, and of course they could opt not to and be a housewife.

From my perspective, it’s much more useful to debate and negotiate over “what is the right” than “what is right”. Ok sorry for the wordplay. I mean, it’s better to talk about what rights one can claim, than what is right for him/her to do. Such a problem exists in every period of time. The question should have been “should women have the right to work” rather than “should you, a woman, work”. And most questions asked in the first way should be answered yes, because greater freedom is always worth fighting for and the limitation is always necessary to discuss. But the second question is totally subjective. We human beings are so fond of imposing our opinions on others and trying to convince and convert others. But how on earth does it harm you that a woman works in the industry or a black serves the government? Or, considering today’s hot topic, a person loves the same sex?

We can find so many things in history that still resonate nowadays. Latin American history really inspires me to reconsider the current world we live in.