Week 13 – “Towards an Uncertain Future”

Max Cameron talked about the “democratic experimentation” that is happening in Latin America today, largely as a byproduct of the USA withdrawing from policing the region (coups are more so a thing of the Cold War at this point). One of takeaways I got from this is that the biggest threat to democracy in Latin America today isn’t autocratic regimes or coups but rather weak institutions and the power of crime and elites. One example in a source I found of “experimentation” is Sao Paulo government’s attempt at restructuring the public school system in the state. Students began to protest, and with a huge contribution from social media (#OcupaEscola, #NãoFecheMinhaEscola), the government revoked its plan. Here is the source for more details:


Max Cameron also talked about the diminishing inequality in Latin America. I remember before leaving for Guatemala researching about the huge disparity between the Guatemalan indigenous population and the non-indigenous population. From my own experience, it was quite jarring to go from a rural hub near Antigua to a Starbucks in Guatemala city. That was really my first focused exposure to the region, and based off what I have read recently, the Covid pandemic threatens to exasperate the already existing poverty and inequalities. For a historically unequal region, redistribution is a common but fervent political talking point, and this pandemic is certainly looking to be a huge reshuffling of wealth in many countries.

This also pertains to the environment, which Alec Dawson also touches on (in this case the Geomorphology class I’m taking comes in handy). The year I went to Guatemala was the first year that a garbage dump (on the trip’s schedule to visit) had actually been revamped by the government. There were now many vehicles operating there, guard towers to sway children from sneaking in, and a new layout for the landfill. On this account, Cameron says:

“Democracy is not so good at addressing the needs of those who don’t vote” such as the environment, future generations, etc.

I was really interested by Bolivia’s decision to give the environment its own rights (Pacha Mama) as I had never thought of this before, but it does seem to address Cameron’s query. This also reminded me of my anthropology course, where I’ve learned about many tribes in Latin America. Their ways of live often did rub against the western paradigm of “more is better” and “getting ahead”.

My question is:

How can we find a balance between a government model of “extraction” and consumption, which is beneficial for lifting people out of poverty and boosting the economy, and a more ecologically sustainable alternative (“buena vivre”)?

Week 12 – Speaking Truth to Power

For this week, several sources caught my attention. The first of these: “Revolutionary Womens’ Law”, reminded me of the Political Program of the Partido Independiente de Color’s declaration. Both are documents which lay out precise reforms for disenfranchised groups. However, a distinction between the two is that whilst “Revolutionary Womens’ Law” reaffirms that anyone, regardless of intersectionality, can join the fight so long as they share in the common goal, the Partido was a virtually exclusively African or mixed political body.

Rita De Grandis’ interview as well as the accompanying Doc 10.1 spoke on the fact that people, especially youth, were being “disappeared”. This really speaks to the perceived threat of the people, which seems to have increased alongside technology. The strength of the Chile Thriller Protest and the Chilean feminist anthem certainly owe some credit to the technology which enabled crucial parts of these demonstrations (an obvious observation being that they are immortalized through video). As a consequence of that, as the Guardian video shows, the “song and accompanying dance have spread throughout the world”. Furthermore, whereas the Madres may have started as “fourteen women in the Plaza de Mayo on April 30”, it is easier now than ever to mobilize large gatherings with the internet.

Rita speaks about “women not denying their gender roles but rather imbuing them with political value”. Even the innocence and “apolitical” role of motherhood, however, did not completely shield these women from the wrath of the Argentine regime (nor the 2 French nuns). In current day, it appears as though solidarity, such as what manifests in the feminist anthem, is cognizant of this. By likening the “oppressive state” to a “macho rapist” and further condemning the police, the state, and the president, the very institutions and most powerful forces of the country are directly reproached. The role of drug-dealers is also a crucial and interesting part of this week’s reading. In many ways, and as the classic example that Escobar shows (he was able to build his own prison, Le Catedral), the hierarchies in Latin America can be very particular. What Dawson says is the “balance of forces” may have been pivoted towards the state during the dirty wars, but in current time it looks as though many other forces have reclaimed their stake in national power (including narcos, as shown by doc. 10.8).

I recall in last week’s readings that Cameron mentioned how Peru may still have fresh wounds from the time preceding Fujimori. Therefore, while Fujimori committed crimes against humanity, he isn’t necessarily disliked by many Peruvians because he is associated with the capture of the Shining Path leader (even though this was orchestrated luckily by police). In fact, Cameron claims that there persists a fear in Peru that challenging the government threatens the stability of the country. This certainly has its precedent in Peru, what with the conflict fought by the Shining Path. My question is, do you think there are cases like this in Latin America, in which traumas of the recent period of “dirty wars” and terror may dissuade social protest or reform?

Research Assignment

The first source is Carlos Jáuregui and Mark Smith-Soto’s bilingual publication on the “The Conquest on Trial”, originally published by Luis Hurtado de Toledo in 1557 (Jáuregui 2). As a narrative, the play is told through the eyes of a band of indigenous Americans. The principle concern of the source is the brutality of the conquistadors. Through the court drama that ensues, themes regarding the grounds for conquest, the purpose of evangelizing and abusing the natives, the legitimacy of converts in the New World, oppression, and the role of empire are all explored (2). In this way, the play signifies an anthology of the time period’s most lively debates revolving around colonialism. The play ultimately concludes that the reasons for the conquest are economic rather than evangelical, and that the only gospel the Spaniards are concerned with is the “gospel of desire”, whether that be gold, labor, or fame (1). Thus, the play ends without resolving the petition of the indigenous who had filed the complaint, and justice is relegated for the afterlife (1).

Though the original author(s) of this piece are uncertain (it is believed that Miguel de Carvajal contributed in some form), it nonetheless represents a scarce artform of the 16th century, one whose sociopolitical significance cannot be understated. Even as a sensationalized artform, the play involves the likes of Bartolomé de las Casas, engaging with the priest’s beliefs (22). The rich cast of characters, including Death, Flesh, World, Satan, Martin Luther, various Saints, bandits, Spanish Jews, Moors, chieftains, and so forth ensure that the whole intricacy and diversity of colonial life is not only represented but played out through interaction, allegory, and symbolism (3). For the purposes of the video assignment, this source’s lack of objectivity and fantastical elements are among its greatest strengths. By dramatizing what are otherwise real qualms and experiences, the play gives a unique insight into the life of colonization, but one which is still situated in the tradition of “Danza de la Muerte” (4). The existence of this tradition itself is explicated by the source and can be informative for the purposes of the video. For example, the figures of speech used by the indigenous in the play are often related to pestilence and illness, almost certainly referring to one of the deadliest plagues in history, killing 80% of Mexico’s population, not long before the play’s conception (5). In totality, the dynamics of the play’s genre, its characters and theme, and its relation to other sources are incredibly relevant and distinct to the colonial period. Carlos Jáuregui, as an Associate Professor of Latin American Literature and Anthropology, puts his expertise to use in the analysis of this primary source.

The second source is “Afro-Latino Voices: Translations of Early Modern Ibero-Atlantic Narratives”. By merging primary sources written by Afro-Latinos and the knowledge of authorities on the subject, this book enlarges overlooked aspects of colonialism and recognizes the complexities of the period. The book itself is categorized into four thematic topics: “Politics and War”, “Families and Communities”, “Religious Beliefs and Practices”, and “Claiming and Defending Rights”. All of these represent different stages and distinctions to the African people’s experience. The first-hand sources in particular grant an emic perspective to the topic. Within the video assignment, these records will contribute meaningfully to the actualities of the African diaspora by uniting otherwise isolated narratives of African people’s experiences, and in intimate detail. This is especially true considering the resources offers perspectives from those fully subjugated under the hierarchies of colonization as well as those who reside in more exceptional social positions. By encompassing the lives of African people who were enslaved, free, or slave owning, writing everywhere from Kongo to New Spain, and regarding many different subjects, the book is comprehensive in its task to give Afro-Latino voices attention. This source is bolstered by its relevant time-frame, fitting for the topic of colonialism because it covers the three stages of the colonial era: “exploration/conquest, mid-colonial society, and the late colonial age of reform” (Location No. 288). The fact that the source also includes the original documents in Spanish and Portuguese alongside their English translations speaks to the authenticity of the scholarship.

However, there also limitations and blind spots with the source. Most of the African people’s voices in this source have been “recorded” by European scribes, and this all too often can lead to an ideological interpretation and distortion on the part of the European or elsewise foreign authors. Another limitation is that though the primary sources originate from several regions within South America, Europe, Africa, and North America, many Afro-Latino voices are still predictably omitted. This source mostly captures the narratives told from the bureaucratic system of the colonial world, whilst many voices are excluded due to the nature of oral transmission or a lack of literacy nor scribe. This is often the nature of historical investigation. Thus, though the documents are mediated and not always written for Afro-Latino communities, it is important to read between the lines and understand the nuances of the genre conventions of colonial administrative writing, of which there are many. Luckily, the authors of the book oblige. Unlike my other source, “Afro-Latino Voices: Translations of Early Modern Ibero-Atlantic Narratives” works towards a standard of objectivity. Although the primary sources have undergone revision or arbitration, the book offers the interpretive and analytical framework to work through these, and therefore the voices of Afro-Latinos can still be recovered in this thorough collection of primary sources, literary analysis, and historical research.


Jáuregui, Carlos. The Conquest on Trial: Carvajal’s Complaint of the Indians in the Court of Death . Penn State University Press, 2008. 1-22. file:///C:/Users/DAVID/Downloads/The_Conquest_on_Trial_Carvajal_s_Complai%20(1).pdf

McKnight, Kathryn J, Garofalo, Leo J. Afro-Latino Voices: Narratives from the Early Modern Ibero-Atlantic World, 1550-1812. Hackett, 2009. [Kindle version]. Retrieved from Amazon.ca




Week 11 – The Terror

From this week’s reading I selected The Interview of the Century, 1988 (excerpt)

Whether the text is reliable in its claim of the mass’s power isn’t a given based off only the text itself. But it is also the case that Gonzalo’s call to violence did work for many “middle-class university students” and would continue growing, as Dawson and Cameron note. As it is with all communist dreams, the “shining path”, even by name, pitches itself to be a great social dream, the actual good attempt at establishing final communism. Indeed, Cameron mentions the take-over of the Peruvian elections in 1980;  the first democratic elections in over a decade in Peru, rendered null because polling booths were attacked by the Shining Path.

One feature of this source that I found interesting is though it is situated as an “interview”, there is no meaningful dialogue nor pushback between the interviewer and interviewee aside from the initial question. Indeed, with a title of “the interview of the century”, it seems to me that this publication El Diario must’ve been sympathetic to the Shining Path and acting as a platform for Gonzalo to speak. Upon some further research, I found that there exists a refashioned version of this exact interview, published in “La cuarta espada: La historia de Abimael Guzmán y Sendero Luminoso” by Santiago Roncagliolo. This version and analysis of the interview is alleged by a paper I found to have integrated fabrications and distortions to the original interview, despite being widely read. The information is on p. 116 on this paper;


This quote also really stood out for me:

“But this people’s war is so earth shaking that they themselves admit that it is of national dimensions and that it has become the principal problem facing the Peruvian State. What terrorism could do that? None.” (308).

Though this conclusion may have been reasonable for 1988, I think that the past decades have shown that it’s not always true. After 9/11, it might be said that at least one of the principal problems from that point forth for many countries became terrorism, and the consequences of terrorism (or whatever a nation is inclined to identify as terrorism) are still felt today (such as what is happening to Uighurs in China, or militant groups being mobilized in recent conflicts). Also, just like in Latin America, the terrorist label can fall upon both right wing (Neo-Nazis) and left wing (ex. current day Antifa). Although Gonzalo cannot imagine that his “noble” cause could be remotely associated with terrorism, I think this is partly some kind of Maoist exceptionalism doing the talking. It’s also true however that the Shining Path was up against a incompetent and brutal government, and that for the peasants in the countryside they weren’t so much “terrorists” as relief and help that the central government failed to provide. I think Gonzalo makes a point in stating “has it or has it not been Yankee imperialism and particularly Reagan who has branded all revolutionary movements as terrorists?”. In today’s world, what does or doesn’t constitute terrorism and what actions should then be taken remains ambiguous in some ways.


Week 10: Power to the People

This week I will be looking at the influence of Evita and the renunciamento.

I found it interesting how Evita would often conflate herself with the people, such as when she said: “my General, we the people, your vanguard of descamisados…”. Here she associates herself with the people by saying “we”, but at other times she distinguishes herself, such as when she says: “As for me, in General Perón, I always found a teacher and a friend” and even thanks “the people” (referring to the people as “them” instead of “we”) for giving her back her life and her soul by bringing to her the general. This gives her two dimensions, showing an unique intimacy with Peron and a broader populistic intimacy. She consistently reaffirms her role as a descamisadas. After doing some research I’ve learned that this word, meaning shirtless, was first used in the novel Les Miserables, where it referred negatively to the Spanish revolutionaries, likening itself to the similar and historical term “sans culotte”. The Argentinian elite adopted “descamisadas” as a derogatory term aimed at Peron supporters, similar to the French “sans culotte” (without breeches).

The origin of the term might stem from when a mass gathering of Peron’s supporters assembled at Casa Rosada to request Peron’s release from prison. The temperature that day was hot enough for many supports to go shirtless. That imagery of a collection of people, persisting under the hot sun to achieve a common goal, certainly evokes that concept of “the people”, and for this reason I think the term was used so much by Evita – as a way to transform it from insult to dignity. That’s not to mention that Peron rode a train called the El Descamisado – a testament to a populist’s leader opportunism to adopt technology and capture the people’s hearts.

But, as Dawson mentions, this is at a time where divisions between people were becoming more ambiguous. The advent of the radio, for example, lent illiterate and poorer people the opportunity to participate and communicate with the government. This elevation of the lower class could serve as part of the basis for conceptualizing “the people”, and as a charismatic figure looking to unite this population, I can certainly see how Evita was so successful. She characterizes herself as a “humble” woman not deserving the affection of the Argentines, and she plays the part, albeit to an extreme, when she says thing like: “I have done nothing; everything is Perón”.

The fact that there are several transcripts of the renunciamento goes to show that even with the power of radio, historical texts may omit different parts for different reasons, and this can influence the reader’s knowledge and perception of an event. The risks are particularly salient here because actual footage of the event is disjointed, witness memory is unreliable, and an uncertainty exists between what the speechwriter intended for Eva to say and what she actually did.

My question for further discussion is: Although the dynamics of the crowd and in turn Eva’s response to it is best captured by Document 7.3, what are still the downsides of transferring an energetic event like that to writing?

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

For this week I wanted to focus on Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart’s “From the Noble Savage to the Third World”, which I found particularly interesting. As someone whose watched several Disney propaganda cartoons produced during WWII, this document brought in familiar themes in many ways.

The book represents a form of cultural colonialism that is especially the hallmark of America’s affairs with the region. As the Chilean author puts it, “Aztecland, under its pseudo-imaginary name and harmful stereotypes of Mexico”, becomes that much easier to “Disnify” (201). That term, “Disnify”, I would argue is almost synonymous with “colonize”. Like colonization, “Disnifying” is all about seizing a domain – whether that be culture or land – for self gain. By flaunting archaic distortions of the “other” –  whether that be through lampooning their English (ex. “Whee! Rich trader buyee our old head hangers!”) or other naïve or primitive behaviors, Disney’s cultural power, especially with children’s entertainment, is a way to seize people’s minds and biases.

This, as the lecture mentions, stems in part from the tendency to “exoticize” the other – and in doing so, discard of the real nation and people’s behind the façade. But, as my anthropology class has made a point of teaching, other civilizations are not failed attempts at being modern or being more like us. Rather, they answer the same fundamental questions about life differently. Disney inadvertently proves this to be the case in the portrayal of Scrooge and his business dealings with the indigenous. Take Gu the abominable snowman for example. He is depicted as a “feeble, brainless Mongolian type” (202).

The way that Disney goes about solidifying this caricature is Gu’s ignorance of the value of Genghis Khan’s golden crown. Whereas Scrooge is cognizant of the crown’s worth, Gu is helpless in this matter, so much so that he is duped by Scrooge into exchanging that crown for a cheap watch. As the authors note, this kind of exchange occurs many times; “As each object of the native’s manufacture is taken away from them, their satisfaction and joy grows” (204). The sheer imbalance of the exchange; “a fistful of jewels for a box of soap”, sets up a marker for supremacy for Disney (204). Ariel and Armond note that it is this dynamic which robs countries both of their future and resources; all while Donald Duck acts as a benevolent and impartial model.

But just like how our present day plastic cash is, what gives a currency its worth is the broader society; there is nothing intrinsically valuable about a currency except that it is accepted to be legitimate. And of course other culture’s way of life will be different; just because a society predicates itself on the reciprocal exchange of coca leaves, for example, doesn’t mean that the “noble savages” of that society are incapable of understanding nor joining foreign production and civilization. Therein lies Disney’s primary fault, as the authors argue: he sees the world as something that should conform to his and more broadly America’s standards.

Week 8: Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age

This week’s topic asked the question: given that modernity and the export boom were coming (in all its superficial, gilded glory), what would be the cost for Latin American countries?

One element seems to have been almost a positive feedback loop – new technologies introduced by modernity (railroads, telegraphs) lead to more upheaval in Latin America’s social contracts, and any rebellion over these is in turn repressed more severely due to modern technologies (railroads, guns). For example, technology such as the telegraph and machine gun influenced aggregation of power and globalization. It seems to be the case that opposition to nation-wide transformations would have to take on a new form to match the heightened risks.

Part of this new form can be seen through works such as “to Roosevelt”. There is a lot to be analyzed here. He, like Marti, warned Latin America over the threat of North American supremacy. To appeal to the US, he wrote in a novel way, indicating a new form of protest in my opinion.

I was interested by Dario’s use of inversions. He calls the United States “primitive and modern, simple and complex” (153). Whereas these juxtaposing labels such as “primitive” would otherwise be used by the United States against Latin America – in Dario’s use, I think he is arguing that neither the US nor Latin America can be so simply classified. I would really like to further break down the literary elements of this poem, but the point is this; outlets such as Dario, arguably stretching back in legacy even to the writings of Guaman Poma, were only one way to resist the impending changes coming to Latin America.

The other form of protest against the effects of modernity are all the civil wars (ex. War of Canudos). In last week’s discussion, I didn’t speak up but I was also thinking that the text was more so indicating that the indigenous were being integrated into society, and I recognized that the jobs listed at the end of the passage were very much the result of modernity. The sentence before the passage gave it away: “And you believe that the vast Indian population of Mexico is capable of high development?”

“I do.” (135)

Yet in this week’s reading, I was taken aback by the reversal of this optimism; as Dawson describes it, the many groups that arose during Latin America’s internal conflicts were seen by some as a memento to undesirable groups (such as the indigenous) which were hoped to have gone away against the tide of “progress”.

My question is: Do you think the “Aesthetic Era” José envisioned can actually be realized? I personally wouldn’t mind for “love, fantasy, and creativity” to have a say amidst all the rationalism (:

On another note, it’s interesting to see a concept of racial advancement that is more about hybridity than a narrow purity.


Week 7: The Export Boom as Modernity


Modernity can be defined as the belief in the universal freedom and rationality of humanity, and is often posed as the conduit for teleological progress. I think the integration of modernity depends on a lot of factors. One of these is topographical. For example, as Dawson states: “Latin Americans lacked the resources needed to build railroads but needed them to unleash the region’s economic potential” (114).

I think these factors have a lot to do with the societies’ “dominant,” “residual,” or “emergent” elements. One residual factor of Latin American countries could be the indigenous population, who’ve often come to the ire of the Latin American governments, which can be seen as more of a dominant structure. Naturally, many indigenous people’s way of life, such as the Huaorani, runs in contradiction to principles of modernity and may even hinder profits for the government. Whereas modernity has led to contemporary capitalism, democracy, and exploitation of nature, indigenous people such as the Huaorani or Barasana have a much different worldview that stands in opposition to these tenets, therefore stifling the process of complete accepting all that modernism entails.

The troubles with modernity in Latin America are several. As was noted in the lecture, there isn’t really a single model of modernity. Wherever modern foundations and practices have occurred they’ve also changed, and through time this has resulted in several forms of modernity found in the world. Western modernity might be adopted by elites in Latin America because of the benefits it offers. However, the Western paradigm for what a modern society should look like isn’t then simply diffused into Latin America; instead it has to encounter already established societal features, and through this amalgamation, lead to an unique proliferation of modernity. This is even true of the indigenous in Peru, for example, where Pre-Colombian beliefs and 500 years of Catholic belief combined for carrying crosses up the apu (mountains) (I can’t seem to find the specific name of this ritual).

Europe itself developed modernity from its discovery of the Americas, whereby the continent’s confounding inhabitants provoked intellectual movements in Europe that redefined humanity and nature (as seen by thinkers like Descartes and Locke). The fact remains, however, that the Western societies’ brand of modernity is very much the result of the preconditions of the West; for a diverse region like Latin America with a wide variety of cosmologies and divergent historical experience, imposing foreign principles will certainly conflict with existing “institutional arrangements”.

My question is, given that there are several versions of modernity, how does this affect the idea of progress/the hope that the world will become better in the future?

Week 6: Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics

This week’s lecture brought up that there is a gap between the abstract domain of rights and the practical integration of them. Even then, once they are incorporated, it may be for alternative motives. For example, Dawson noted how some formerly enslaved black slave owners in Haiti embraced emancipation not for the virtue of it but rather because liberated slaves could be recruited by them during the civil war that encroached upon Haiti in the 1790s (78).

What I noticed from this week is how much it relates to the anthropology course I’m taking. Through both courses I have seen how past dogmatic European beliefs can have repercussions for the present. Pseudoscience such as phrenology, eugenics, and theories such as social Darwinism were used to justify racism, sexism, and other discrimination, culminating in systems such as the “limpieza de sangre” (75). My anthropology class also touched upon this notion that race as a biological reality is fictive but remains as a social construct. I  think this history of fearing/disdaining the “other” can indeed be attributed largely to such metaphysical tenets – dogmas that exist only in our minds, but that have practical implications nonetheless.

I saw further proof of this in Judith’s work. When she boxed the role of a woman into a traditional framework, where submission and servitude to husband and children was paramount, I think her argument stemmed from a religious doctrine that really has almost no basis in reality – like race, the role of gender is socially determined, not a biological reality. This, I would think, also would apply to slavery. The act of slavery is so cruel and degrading that I think it’d only make sense for slave traders to imagine such mindless justifications for it – regardless of how warranted these justifications were. It is rather recently in human history where our beliefs shifted from degrading the ‘other’ to a more inclusive attempt to understand the ‘other’.

But the legacy of slavery and past grievances remain in the Americas nonetheless. I would say the difficulty with this is that the history of slavery and abuses are tangled up in a miasma between the practical and abstract. Dawson noted how emancipation was an intricate meld of “outside pressures, internal elite conflicts, and pressure from slaves themselves” – all contending for tangible resources and power gain (80). On the other hand, however, are the ideologies that justified these practices, which I think are much harder to eliminate, even once the process of integrating rights has already begun. It seems to me that laws often change faster than a population’s ethos, and therein lies the problem.

My question would be in what ways are we in modern times still bound by abstract dogmas that hinder change?

Week 5: Caudillos Versus the Nation State


After watching the lecture and reading Caudillos Versus the Nation State”, I could see some of the appeal behind a caudillismo system. The Caudillos could appeal to the marginalized, as it is claimed that Guatemalan caudillo Rafael Carrera did when he restrained the state and vouched for the peasant’s rural autonomy. With the power vacuum and institutional upheaval following all of these independence movements, it makes sense why regional power brokers would emerge to unite people amidst uncertainty and change.

I think the Caudillos offered a lot: substantial and practical financial benefits to their gauchos, along with the food, apparel, and other currency that’d entail. Under the wing of a caudillo, political and personal vendettas could be enacted against enemies. If we look back on previous lessons discussing Latin America’s confounding identity, the caudillos might’ve instilled a sense of identity better than a liberal democracy would have. After all the caudillos united communities, empowered commoners in local affairs, offered protection in legal and more visceral conflicts.

This amounts to a system of clientelism, patronage, but most importantly, reciprocity, which I would think there’d be a high demand for after the inequitable tyranny of the Spanish. Mixed-race and impoverished people had a part to play and reward to gain in newly formed states. While the caudillos were responsible for much suffering, I think a nuanced view can still condemn them and see the benefits they brought. As far as post-independence periods go, perhaps the caudillos do provide caveats that a liberal democracy wouldn’t. Whereas elites are able to manipulate pretty much all political systems, caudillos seemed to have more to say to the elites than most corruptions in democracies do. Another flaw in a liberal democracy lies in the populace’s ignorance and biases. This is true of the United States now, which is more polarized now than in a long time. To impose that on an uneducated and inexperienced nation would likely yield similar results, and even now the multiculturalism and equality of democracy is yet to be hashed out in parts of Latin America.

With all of this being said, I came across this political ad for the 2020 election. I can’t attach the video here but I can give the URL, just enable the ads to access.


What is there to say about a country that prides itself on being a liberal democracy when the #1 person in power begins acting like a “caudillo” (according to this ad)? What could this advertisement tell us about the way the United States perceives Latin America?