This week, we were able to explore some of the reasons as to why a large number of Latin American nations are subjects of extremely instability in cultural, social and political contexts. I found great joy in learning the content this week, as I myself hail from a country with similar recurrent issues, thus this allowed me have a better understanding of my own culture and modern day history as a whole. Something I’ve come to disagree with, is the view that unemployment is the major source of instability in the content.

This for me is not true, because some countries in the nation e.g. Brazil and Chile, have lower unemployment rates then their poorer counterparts e.g. Bolivia and Uruguay, however all countries suffer from the same consistent issues. I myself believe that the lack of physical infrastructure in the continent is the major source of instability. As I find that a society is unable to progress when it lacks the basic physical capital that allows its citizens to become financially prosperous. Infrastructure is what has allowed great countries like Germany and Norway to surpass all, and reach the heights of stability.

Additionally, it is easily observed that when these countries prosper in terms of another macroeconomic indicator. This growth has never really translated to an increase in quality of life or overall stability. For example, when Brazil has high economic growth rates of 5 to 6% in the days leading up the 2014 FIFA World Cup, the country was still in an unstable condition where many people feared for their lives daily. Although the country experienced physical economic growth, the issues that existed prior to this growth lived on and limited the country’s ability to prosper with respect to other areas of society. For example, crimes such as arson and kidnapping surprisingly experienced no decrease whatsoever.

The only way to kick these issues to the curb was by targeting them at their source. Educational campaigns aimed at lower income areas e.g. favelas, when introduced, have proven to be more effective at combating social issues then any increase in any economic factor. After learning this week’s content, and after examining the issues brought forth, my question for this week is: “How can the leaders of South America be more effective in combating social issues that have consistently limited their countries ability to strive for an overall increase in quality of life?

This week’s topic refers to an issue to which, growing up, I struggled to make my mind on. The “Sendero Luminoso” group was an extremist group who turned to violent tactics in order to foster change in the social and political scene in Peru. Regardless of whether I agree with violence “for the greater good” which I will get to, it would be ignorant not to recognize the impact of the group on the positive change that occurred in post-civil war Peru.

Before moving on to explain how I felt about violence for the sake of justice, I would like to elaborate a little bit more on this week.

This week taught me that Latin America was one of the unfortunate victims of the Cold War, especially after the Cuban revolution. The United States feared the “domino theory”, that communism would spread across South America and pose a huge threat to the United States. They therefore invested large sums of money into the backing of puppet regimes to suppress communism within Latin American states.

Thomas Jefferson once said that when injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty. According to this principle, and after this week’s content, its difficult for me to condemn the use of violence as a principle. I do not condone every action committed by Sendero Luminoso, however I do believe it is a human duty to resist any injustice. It goes without saying that violence should always be the last resort, but without a platform for dialogue or non-violent resistance, they were not left with an option

Throughout the week, I’ve come to the realization that the modern day concept of media has been embodied into the culture of every Latin American man or women. Every member of this large but unique community has come together for the very first time in their life, regardless of religion, ethnic background and social status, to give respect to their countries music. Wars have been fought and won between these people, but what has kept them together over the years is their love of entertainment. Social banter being one of the sources of every smile on every face in Latin America.

Take the song “Mas Que Nada” by Sergio Mendes (and recently the remix by the black eyed peas). When this song is played, the effect of the love for music and all that’s pure is observed in every city in Latin America. The song was even featured in electronic arts famous FIFA video game. Famous for including songs that make people happy and that allow them to forget their troubles in the spur of the moment. Another example being the significance of the “Tango” in early 21th century Argentina. When the financial crisis occurred in the early 2000’s as a result of gross debt and major corruption, many people in Argentina believed that the best way of destroying this stress was by dancing to the songs that they grew up dancing to. One of these being Santa Maria by Gotan Project.

Other areas of the media have also played a part in Latin American history, one of these being the radio. Take Colombian Politics in the late 1970’s. Although the country was in a constant state of alarm due to the ongoing drug wars between the Medellin and Cali cartels, the radio was certainly a catalyst in keeping citizens calm and aware of present dangers. The radio also contributed highly in the electoral campaign of Ernesto Samper Pizano, who won by a landslide in 1994 and whose campaign largely used the radio to earn the loyalty of the people. The success of such a tactic only emphasizes the importance and significance of the media to the people of Latin America.

The use of media has, and will always be the secret weapon of Latin American politicians in reaching eminent glory. However, I am unable to comprehend why such a strategy has been consistently effective in the continents history. A combination of arguments brought forth above make me question, how exactly would things be different for the continent, had the media played a smaller role in continental affairs?

Historically, it has been observed that the greatest cause of American interference in Latin American economic, political and socio-political settings has been Americas desire to maintain economical control over these less developed Latin American nations. Such policies have been practiced by America consistently throughout modern history and an example of this policy being performed in another geographical region would be the Middle East. America’s entry to Iraq although extremely controversial, led to gross economic benefit for the north American nation. The war on terror put the National Rifle Association in a favorable position and many American weapon manufacturers e.g. Boeing benefited heavily.

This week’s focus relates to the American influence in Latin America, which is unparalleled today in comparison to other modern superpowers. But to what extent is America influential? How does the influence of the USA in Latin America compare to the influence of Latin America in the USA? I will attempt to answer the questions in relation to Guatemala and Banana Production.

One of the answers as to how the US is able to have such a large influence on Latin America lies in its multinational companies. The reading Journey to Banana Land refers to the multinational corporation UFCO, which monopolized the production of bananas in Guatemala and owned a vast amount of lands in the Latin American state. Due to their great control of public services, infrastructure and their contribution to the Guatemalan economy, it was difficult for UFCO not to get their way.

American control of media is another aspect of their influence in Latin America. Although completely different scenarios, and although I do not necessarily have a certain view of Palestinian leader Arafat, it was easy for me as an Arab to draw comparison between two scenarios. When Arafat was made out to be a terrorist, then a peace-making diplomat, then a terrorist again, and when Arbenz, who Alexander Dawson describes as ‘anti-communist’, was made out to be a communist by American media after he opposed the UFCO.

In conclusion, it was interesting for me to acknowledge the extent of American influence in Latin America this week. Especially in regards to their trade policies and influence of culture, keeping in mind the recent election of right-wing candidate Donald Trump.

I would like to begin this blog post by commenting on something that Diaz said that I found particularly interesting. Diaz made the claim that democracy was for the middle class, as the rich did not care about the poor, and the poor were too uneducated. I find this claim extremely intriguing, as some research I have put in shows a high correlation between democracy and the middle class as a high percentage of the population. This week’s focus was on the modernity of South America in the early 20^th century.

This week we learnt that the elites of Mexico back then, simply measured modernity in terms of infrastructure and aesthetics, while Dawson measures modernity in terms of innovation, liberty and secularism. We learnt about the division between the wealthy, who lived in the cities, and the poor, who lived in rural areas/outskirts.

I found it particularly saddening to see how the poor were exploited and abused for the sake of the modernity that the elites referred to. On occasions Diaz justified human rights abuses and ‘cruelty’ by citing national modernization interests. I am strongly opposed to this as I am a staunch believer in the principle that a leader should take care of his people before his land, as taking care of the people does both.

This week I learnt that living in post-independence Latin America was not actually that bad, that is, of course, unless you were black, a woman, poor or native to Latin America. This week showed us the struggle for rights by various groups including people of African descent, Indigenous and even Mestizo’s and Mulatto’s. Republics were ruled and controlled by rich people from European descent, who were more or less the only people who were entitled to influence change and even contribute to the newly written constitutions. This was due to many reasons, including scientific beliefs that a certain race was superior to and responsible for ruling over other races. I saw this as something very dangerous, for if this is believed, the immorality and guilt of injustice is removed.

I was also shocked by the level of the integration of racism in Latin American societies, it was almost like a state of mind, as if racial superiority was a fact that went without saying. This is illustrated by Dawson when he discusses how even after the abolishment of slavery in Brazil in 1888, the elites of Brazil attempted to decrease the job opportunities available to emancipated slaves by supporting and even spending large sums of money to subsidize European immigration to Brazil so jobs could be occupied by whites. I realized that this was not so long ago and decided to do some research out of curiosity. I discovered that today unemployment is 50% higher amongst Brazilians of African descent than that of Brazilians of European descent, and those employed earn less than half of what whites earn. 78% of African Brazilians are poor and to me this is no coincidence. I realized that even 150 years is not enough to fully eliminate the aftermaths of racial segregation and slavery.

This week was truly an epiphany for me. In my first blog post I discussed how I was so intrigued by the coexistence and wellbeing of Latin Americans irrespective of their race. I learnt this week that I may have been wrong.

This week, I came to realize that social structures in the world today are just a subtler version of social structures long ago. While some claim that, in free countries, success is based on merit and creativity – working hard and working smart. There is another element that prevails and, in my opinion, will always prevail which is networking. While today, a good relationship with someone holding a high position can be more sufficient than the difference between two candidates for a job and can contribute to one’s success, the wellbeing and life of people in post-independence Latin America DEPENDED solely on their relationship with the elites of society in the Caudillos system.

I learnt about the power vacuum that was filled by the Caudillos and left by the colonialists, which dominated Latin America. The elites of society took advantage of the lack of powerful governments and political instability in the 19^th century, which was filled with war and conflict, who did as they pleased and traded financial and security benefits for the support of peasants to defend their actions.

Liberalism did not seem to be popular amongst the people of Latin America, who grew used to the high levels of corruption. I however, do not entirely agree with “The Slaughterhouse” where Echeverria saw those who backed the Caudillos at fault. Although the adoption of liberalism by peasants would leave the Caudillos much weaker, the priority of a peasant every morning is to ensure they are able to put a meal on the table for their families. The process of a liberalist revolution would be slow and difficult to spread as peasants would risk losing their relationships with the Caudillos and, more importantly, risk the wellbeing of their families. I blame the Caudillos themselves for not using their power to influence change, perhaps because they enjoyed the wealth and wellbeing gap between them and the less privileged. I also blame the European colonialists for not facilitating the instalment of a powerful system, for they were the ones responsible for the societal gap.

This week’s material and discussions were ones that I held close to my heart personally. Politics aside, I have always believed in the right of every group of people to self-determination and have always believed in the principles of democracy and elections – the power of the majority. The interference of larger nations on the politics of smaller nations is inevitable, and more importantly, not necessarily immoral. In Latin America however, we learnt this week that it was a case of oppression and the colonizers had no regard for the wellbeing, human rights or resources of those indigenous to the lands, something I viewed as arrogant and vain as I could find no other explanation other than the colonizers feeling they were superior.

What we also learnt this week is that Latin American colonies were mostly not settler colonies, which were bad enough, but rather exploitation colonies. This means that they were colonizing Latin American territories merely to exploit resources that did not belong to them, or in other words, greed.

What this week symbolized for me was resistance, a human obligation to oppression. As Simon Bolivar said in the Jamaica Letter: “There is nothing we have not suffered at the hands of that unnatural stepmother – Spain”. Bolivar used this letter to preach Latin American unity against their dark history and what remained of it at the time in which the letter was written (1815). Another person who challenged the status-quo was Jose Marti, who also discussed the importance of a united Latin America, where those in control come from and understand the people of Latin America and their desires. Former Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez discussed the modern form of enslavement, or rather control against the will of those being controlled. Chavez discussed the susceptibility of South America to the modern exploitation of South America.

In summary, this week I have learnt that, regardless of morality, true sovereignty is essential for the wellbeing of a people. On a sadder note, also that no one will strive for the benefit of a nation except if it is in their interest.

As an avid book reader and a lover for storytelling, I found the Lieutenant Nun to be extremely fascinating. The extract discussed how Catalina de Erauso defied the social norms and decided to serve as a soldier in Peru and Chile, albeit being a woman. Although I do not support efforts made by Spain to colonize and exploit South America against the will of those native to it, I enjoyed reading about the measures Catalina took to disguise herself as a man, fight for a cause she believed in, and defy the expectation set on her by society. Some may argue that she did nothing special, in reality the Lieutenant Nun was an extract I read with sympathy, after which I realized that it was an accomplishment in itself to be a female soldier back in the 1600’s.

As for the Casta Paintings, I was particularly amused by the evident effort put in to define the races of mixed race children. What I learnt this week was that race was something concrete for a large portion of the early European settlement into Latin America. Race was a means of defining social status dependent on the race dominating the world at the time. Given that the global hegemons were the European empires, European settlers into Latin America were seen as the dominant race, while the African and Indigenous American populations were victims of slavery therefore depressing their social status. I was intrigued by how these paintings attempted so hard to depict the undepictable- the perfect social structure in which every race lived in. These paintings tried to show the difference in lives lived by people of different races and ethnicities, something I could compare to the current situation in my homeland.

1492 marked the first time the Europeans reached Latin America. While it was recognized in the first lecture that Latin America was more a concept than a geographically defined area, Christopher Columbus’ arrival at the Bahamas is believed to be the starting point for the colonization of the Americas by the Europeans. This week and its content proved to cause a change in my perspective regarding Columbus and what I believed beforehand to be his accomplishments. In this blog post I will discuss two assumptions that lingered in my mind only to be proven wrong this week.

Before discussing whether I had admired him or not, I definitely saw Columbus as a genius. After all how could a man who lived in a time with such little geographic discovery, discover an entire continent. What I learnt this week firstly was that Columbus was not necessarily a genius who voyaged in a calculated manner across the seas in hope to land at undiscovered territory, but was rather on a journey to deliver letters to India where he stumbled upon the Americas in what seems to be an accident.

Moving onto his admiration, I saw Columbus in many high school textbooks, and recognized many landmarks and significant things named after him (including the country of Colombia), I saw Columbus as a man who changed the world – a hero. That was a certainty in my mind, the same way I was certain that Mandela and Gandhi are peace heroes. What I learnt this week was that this was not necessarily the case. Columbus actually took part in the enslavement and persecution of many Native Americans.

The question I asked myself after this week summarizes my thoughts throughout it: Given that Columbus was neither a genius (as he stumbled upon the Bahamas en route to India) nor a hero (due to his involvement in immoral activity), why should he be admired?