Hi Everyone
Here are copies of the powerpoint notes from Tuesday and Thursday’s class. In the comment section of this post, discuss in one or all of this week’s readings something you found interesting, something you agreed with and something you disagreed with. Please complete this by Tuesday January 16th.
Here is the reading from Canclini in case you’re interested. The chapter I quoted from is called “Latin American Contradictions”. http://muse.jhu.edu/book/27691
The readings for next week include this portion of Ariel Dorfman’s How to Read Donald Duck which we will discuss on Tuesday (Apologies if you read some of this in 100), and apologies for how it looks on the PDF. UBC’s copy is old and falling apart.
The reading for Thursday is the Introductory Chapter of Hebdige’s Subculture: The Meaning of Style. Unfortunately there is no way to download the chapter without downloading the whole book. So here’s the link to the book. Please read pages 5-23.
The readings this week prompted me reflect on how important it is to define terms when tackling huge social and economic ideologies and developments from these ideologies. Brunner and Cornejo Polar both left their articles quite open-ended and knew that before tackling the issues and subjects they wanted to discuss, they had to be able to use the correct vocabulary first and foremost.
In regards to how Latin America has changed, I think that through Brunner’s article it is clear that the Western definitions of modernity was a for a long time, very limiting and strict, excluding for the realities of what Latin Americans were living at the time, although being the accepted definition.
I would say that although American influence has been both, willingly accepted as well as forced through USA intervention projects, Latin America has began to find its ‘groove’ on how they would like to modernize each and every country, knowing and realizing that there is not a one-size-fits-all method to modernize.
I apologize that my post sent without me meaning to.
I found the readings interesting, because they really focus, especially Brunner on the effects of North American intervention in Latin America, specifically in the way in which the area saw what ‘modernization’ meant in itself, and I completely agreed with his claims on this. However, one things that I disagree with is his opinion, not necessarily on religion (because I’m a firm believer that people should believe whatever they like as long as it does not hurt anyone), but rather on the dangers of secularism. I personally do not think that it exacerbates the heterogeneity of Latin America because secularism takes away an aspect of life that many people do not put active thought into (cultural Catholics), but it provides more room for finding more meaningful and active connections between Latin Americans, leading to the lessening of the heterogeneity of Latin America.
Catholicism’s influence in Latin America cannot be subjected to ‘conventional’ views on secularization. By no doubt, Christianity is a huge influence in LA, to the point where other religions are almost nonexistent – Argentina physically exercised this during La Guerra Sucia targeting Jews. Since the conquest and colonialism, Christianity has been the forefront of culture in Latin America. It serves so much more than just religion, and I may even argue that it more cultural than religious relative to other parts in the world. As a Latin American Jew myself, my perspective is one of an outsider, and therefore it is hard for me to fully comprehend the impact of Catholicism. In our readings I largely agree that LA’s political problems of the 20th Century were caused by the “ideological inflation” of political movements that occurred in the sixties as the result of this loss of consensus. But I would add that Latin America has a tendency to inflate not only political ideologies, but religious and cultural ideologies as well. This could be due to many deeply rooted issues, but as unified as LA seems to be, I believe that identity loss is the cause for inflated nationalism, religion, and ideology as a whole. Like in the readings, this is likely due to US interventions, transculturation issues, and simply the issue of poverty. Nothing about this is simple, but it is hard to expect LA not to find comfort in God or in the US economy, especially when it forced into their society.
Something I really found interesting in last weeks readings was the history that was described in Tabacco and Sugar by Ortiz. I was amazed by how in Cuba the whole native community got completely eradicated and Cuba right now is the acculturation of many cultures that came in and inhabited the land. Cuba is really a one and only based on the history it has gone through in comparison with other Latin American countries. Really interested in visiting Cuba and seeing what it has become due to all this Acculturation.
While reading through Jose Joaquin Brunner, I agree on many of his points trying to describe cultural heterogeneity in Latin American Countries, for example Mexico. I completely agree about how Catholic Churches have had a big influence on modernity in Mexico. They have essentially slowed down the process and been a big influence in heterogeneity. Although something I do not agree with is the statement regarding how secularism exacerbates heterogeneity. I think that as a country becomes less religious it will actually become less fragmented. Although throughout the initial process it might seem that it is becoming more fragmented. As more people become less religious the whole country will be less fragmented.
I found Fernando Ortiz’s article a very interesting read. I agreed with his definition of transculturation as I feel it gives a more holistic understanding of cultural transition than acculturation and deculturation. I also found interesting the historical timeline of Cuba that Ortiz described at the start of the chapter. It was fascinating to see what each culture brought and created in terms of laws, institutions and norms. I do somewhat disagree with Ortiz’s claim that European immigrants felt the same state of ‘dissociation’ in Cuba as the African slaves. I felt this linking ignored the stark difference between the quality of life that was available for the Europeans and the slaves.
I found Ortiz’s reading for last week quite interesting for a number of reasons. His inclusion of all the native Cuban cultures was eye-opening, as I was unaware of the diversity of indigenous cultures prior to Cuba’s invasion. Another interesting point that Ortiz made was that, in comparison to places like Europe, Cuba’s history of conquest, upheaval and cultural change happened in such a short period of time, and I believe that’s an important fact to take note of when studying Cuba in the present day, and how it came to be.
I found Ortiz’s main argument for the concept of transculturation well stated – although I’d have to study more into Cuban culture and history to make a final judgement, a ‘synthesis’ approach seems more applicable (to both Cuba and Latin America as a whole), as a mixture of cultures, in place of the complete acquisition/removal of a culture (as acculturation and deculturation suggests) appears more likely. However, as was discussed in class, I disagree with Ortiz’s suggestion that African slaves and the Spanish conquistador’s shared a similar experience of upheaval and ‘homesickness’; although he expands later, adding that the African experience was incomparable, his initial sentiment still attempts to connect two wildly different experiences that are in no way similar.
Regarding Ortiz and his thesis I am in agreement in that ‘transculturation’ is a more fitting term as opposed to ‘acculturation.’ Culture in Latin America is not simply Spanish culture in a different place. Spanish and Latin American culture are different because the Indigenous cultures were not entirely obliterated, parts of their culture linger on and same goes for the cultures of the Africans that were brought over. Yet, I do not think that the culture of Latin America was brought about through a ‘dialectical process.’ Force was used and not all cultures were or are still treated the same. Many aspects of Indigenous cultures were purposely destroyed and which aspects of their culture would remain was not agreed upon through dialogue. To this day, many places in Latin America view the Indigenous cultures as inferior and undesirable along with Indigenous physical traits. The dislike of the Indigenous culture and physique is a legacy of the colonial past that still exists today in Latin America.
Latin American culture is indeed a mixture of Spanish and Indigenous cultures thus I agree that Ortiz’s term, ‘transculturation,’ is appropriate. Yet, the process by which occurred was not ‘dialectical’ as he proposed.
I found all readings interesting, for they all try to explain the development of Latin American culture, how it came to be, and why it is what it is nowadays. I found Ortiz’s ‘Tabaco y Azúcar’ particularly interesting because what he says about Cuba is something that applies to most Latin American countries. We are indeed a mix of many different cultures and we are equally influenced by the Spanish and by the people who lived there before the Conquest. On the other hand, I agree with Brunner in his text about modernization. Like him, I too believe that religion has had a big impact in all Latin American countries, and it is not necessarily good. Furthermore, Latin American countries are strongly influenced by the United States, which had a significant impact in our cultural modernization, as discussed in class. Lastly, there is nothing that I particularly disagree with, or at least not regarding the lecture. However, I do think that Vasconcelos had an interesting point of view, and I do not necessarily agree with it, since it seems a bit discriminatory, though not racist. Nonetheless, to a certain point I believe that all these people had something to say about the culture and its progress and all points of view seem to be valid.
I have always considered religion an interesting topic. Being that my roots are from Yugoslavia (a country that largely dissolved due to religion), I have always considered religion an interesting topic. Yugoslavia was a country that was at one point under completely secular, socialist rule. After ethnic tensions arose, and a civil war was fought, Yugoslavia became a number of smaller countries. Today, all of a sudden, many of the people who lived under the secular rule for most of their lives are now stringently practicing their respective religions. It is a strange sight for me. Before conducting these readings, I was under the impression that, though Catholicism was a part of Latin American life, it was not truly practiced. I believed that it was more of a background noise, if you will. After all, all my impressions of Latin American life seemed to indicate that the almost military stringency of true Catholic faith was not genuinely followed. The people seemed very comfortable with themselves and their sexualities and all of those sorts of things that come to mind as being pillars of Catholicism. Upon mentioning this to some of my Latin classmates, they informed me that there was a quite noticeable divide between how the faith was viewed in Urban cities and how it was viewed in more rural communities. It is very interesting to know that Catholicism has largely shaped Latin American culture and is deeply woven into the very fabric of Latin American life and being.
Even though all the readings were interesting, I found Ortiz’s approach to understanding Cuban culture and heritage to be the most profound. He uses the term, “acculturation,” to look at the social repercussions caused by the transition of one culture to another. Transformations as such, not only impact those who are either abandoning or being stripped of their own culture but as well the indigenous cultures that are being destroyed and/or adapted due to the influx of new foreigners. Cuba’s heritage and diversity are so vast and combine multitudes of cultures and races together, which was something that I found particularly interesting while reading. I agree with Ortiz that because of acculturation, many cultural bases are shifted and changed due to immigration, and new economies. However as discussed in lecture, Ortiz tries to compare two vastly different races together by stating how they were both stripped of their cultural heritage. The African slaves and the Spanish immigrants differ in so many ways, not only by title but as well the lifestyle they faced in Cuba. The former of the two had a much easier life whereas the latter faced much harder circumstances (ie; being treated as slaves)
Personally, I liked most of the readings this week, but what I liked the most was finding out more things about Cuba and how a writer like Ortiz describes the society. By reading ‘Tabaco y Azucar’ I was able to understand some things about my home country Mexico. Although both countries have different stories most countries in Latin America can relate each other when it comes to culture and globalization. I agree that sometimes culture is lost because acculturation, however, I also believe that due to this process people learn to love their own culture and try to preserve it as much as they can. Back in Mexico you can found people from all over of Latin America, but this doesn’t mean that we are losing our own culture or that tourist are embracing the mexican culture as their own. One thing I don’t agree with is the comparison between the African slaves and the Spanish immigrants, the conditions in which they were brought to America are so different that I don’t think there is a point in trying to compare both cases. The life that the slaves had to live was full of tragedies and abuses, in the other hand the Spanish were brought to populate the country and to expand their own territory so both lifes have nothing in common.
The reading I found this week were very interesting and informative. I particularly found the Ortiz reading to be quite interesting. I found it interesting the way Ortiz looks at society as a whole, and cuban society and heritage. I was also interested how the reading looks at each of the different ethnic groups that compose Cuba’s culture. I agree with Ortiz idea of transculturation and is a much greater term used rather than acculturation. I also found to be the topic of religion in the readings, and how Christianity is so important of the culture in Latin America, how Christianity is more important that a religion it is a way of life and culture for Latin American people. I found it to be quite interesting and the impact the United States of America has on Latin America, and how influence their impact is today through United States industries and companies with are promenade in the United States today, and also the political impact of the United States in these areas.
This week’s readings were very interesting and informative, what I thought was the most interesting was the reading on Transculturation. The theory that all people coming together in Latin America and put aside differences and synthesis into the ultimate human race and potential. I found this very interesting because for there to be an ultimate race, only the best people would be used to bread and form this race. Which mean that some of the people in Latin America would not be involved in this race. Those of the lower class and or people who don’t offer any specific attribute that would make the “ultimate human potential” would be left out. This is why I find this theory so interesting, in my mind it would not be the ultimate human potential because everyone offers there own special attribute to the world.
Although at times difficult to understand, I found last weeks readings quite interesting. In particular, the Ortiz text. I enjoyed how Ortiz decided to stage the story between tobacco and sugar in which the opposing cultural elements debate each other. Ortiz?s view on transculturation was engaging to learn about and I agreed with its definition as it was more accurate than that of acculturation and deculturation. I also appreciated Oritz?s decision to include all of the native cuban cultures because it was compelling to read the way in which these people had come to the land. Moreover, I was interested in the theory of all people coming together in Latin America to form some type of super race-this was quite profound. Overall, I enjoyed these readings and hearing the history of Cuba through the eyes of a writer like Ortiz.
I found that Ortiz helped bring to light the experience of those coming to a new country, willingly or not, as well as the cause and effect this has on the people already in place in the so called “new land”. Through the eyes of the indigenous, this invasion and consequential eradication, of course, is devastating; through the eyes of the slave, it brings a cataclysmic loss of all things once known. Gone is not just the familiarity of one’s home, family and culture, but additionally, their language, land and freedom. For those who had the choice of arrival, perhaps an opportunity of betterment presents itself, there is chance to start over or become someone that the previous society disallowed. In any case, for everyone involved, there is a enormous readjustment or disarrangement that must occur. This transculturation, as Ortiz calls it, brings both benefits and losses, depending upon which category of the neo-culture one falls into. I see his need to redefine this mixing and building of new societies, as these transitions are more than a process of transferring one culture over to the next, instead, they are a forging of new and old, trial and error, and profound upheaval of previous circumstances.
I enjoyed Ortiz’s writing, but I thought he introduced a contradictory point. With the invention and use of the neologism transculturation, he seeks to define the current Cuban culture as an equilibrium between the older indigenous cultures and the newer European (read: Spanish) cultures. However, he also mentions how the indigenous population was decimated by the Spaniards. In my mind it is a hard sell to claim that both parties cultural inputs could reach an equilibrium, given the overwhelming and oppressive nature of the Spanish colonization. I do not know how Ortiz reconciles these two points. I do believe that the culture in Cuba is distinct from both Indigenous and Spanish culture and so exists on some form of spectrum, but it seems to me that it lies closer to the Spanish end. One must also keep in mind the contributions of other groups, like the enslaved Africans in Cuba.
Ortiz’s idea of transculturation combines acculturation, deculturation and neoculturation. His theories rely on the assumption that people carry their cultures like a suitcase –– the consequence of which deems African immigrants (who were brought to Cuba as through enslavement) as baggage-less. “The Negroes brought with their bodies their souls, but not their institutions not the implements.” To this thinking, I would ask him about the culture-content of their soul-carrying bodies. For me it is clear that African cultures have had a widespread influence on Cuban culture(s) to this day ––the most obvious case being the prevalence of Yoruba spiritualities. The idiosyncrasy of Cuba, and the Americas by analogy, is pointed out by Ortiz. Certainly, the mixing of previously geographically distant cultures created in the Americas a phenomena of cosmopolitanism unseen before in history. It is interesting to ask how social institutions had to evolve to regulate these new dimensions of diversity, especially in such stratified societies of colonial and post-colonial Latin America.
Before reading Ortiz’s text I had almost no knowledge of Cuban community and what processes occurred for it to become what is is right now. I can certainly agree, after reading, that the term “transculturation” works much better than “acculturatiuon”. So many things changed in Cuba in a short period of time, skipping and jumping through the processes that lasted for centuries in Europe. Many different groups of people found themselves interacting, adjusting and, eventually, forming Cuban culture. The culture that was formed by people so different and distant from each other, brought there with very different intentions, which makes it even more unique. What I can’t quite agree with is, is how he compared the experiences of slaves and the Spanish conquistadors, as it’s pretty obvious that their lives had been majorly different. What I found really interesting, is Brunners idea on how to perceive culture. He says that it is not something that can be analyzed, something that can be looked at over and over and understood completely. Culture is so much more, and only people living it can truly feel it. It has much more to it, something that can’t be put on paper. I never thought about it this way, but it only makes perfect sense to me.
I was instantly drawn to the Ortiz article Tobacco and Sugar. The title reminded me of the sugarcane fields I spent my summers back in my dad’s hometown of Isabela in the province of Negros Occidental, Philippines. The culture on the farms was drastically different from the culture in Manila, the city where I went to school and spent most of my time. In Negros the influence of Spanish culture more present in the culture of society where as in Manila there is a stronger presence of American culture. In Negros the society is still structured around haciendas and hacienderos who run much of the politics and the economy. Manila is a more global city where an amalgam of domestic and international cultures are compressed together. The way that Cuba is described in this article reminds me a lot of the Philippines. A place where a mixture of cultures coexist and transculturation as a result of colonization and globalization can be seen everyday.
I found the discussion on Raza Cosmica, theoretically interesting both because it was unique and relatively groundbreaking for its era. The idea that all racial differences can be synthesized in order to create the perfect sub species of humanity is certainly one I had not heard before. And compared to the other doctrines of the time, which centered mostly around white supremacy, it is a little refreshing to read about a concept that demonized no specific race, just poor people. Even if such a perfect race was realistically possible, it would still not be the optimal society, since it is based on opinions and objective qualifications, such as aesthetic. I tend to agree that our world needs a concept that recognizes the flaws, history and tensions between cultures with conflicts or differences. The concept of a cosmic race would also call in the tension of trying to create unity within the reality of diversity.
I agree with Cornejo Polar’s criticisms of Ortiz. What Ortiz offers is a very naive and reductive ideal of what Latinidad should be. He attempts to present a flawlessly homogenous and harmonious Latin America. Ortiz completely disregards the very real need to create a space and period of dialogue where anger over colonialism can be expressed, with subsequent social change to dismantle the strong remnant of racial hierarchy in Latin America. What there also needs to be is a process where the distinctions between Latin American natures are acknowledged and celebrated rather than erased in a vague and meaningless notion of synthesis. This ties into the disagreement I hold with Vasconcelos’s “raza cósmica”. We should not seek to distill race into a “perfect human being”, for that would eradicate races and rob their agency and future. We should not opt out of conversations revolving around discrimination. We should opt for Cornejo Polar’s much more constructive approach of admitting the flaws and recognizing the merits of the history of the construction of the different cultures and identities that have created contemporary Latinidad.
Since I had no basic knowledge about any of Latin American Culture, it was not easy for me to get the idea of several readings. However, most of them were very informative and I would like to spend more time getting into those. Even though most of the students are answering that Ortiz’s reading was most informative or interesting, what I was quite interested was idea of Vasconcelos. I thought Latin America would also have some racial prejudice that white is the best or else since Latin America was also a lot influenced by dominant nations. However, Vasconcelos’s idea was quite modern in the point that every races have its own strong points and gathering all of those would bring the perfection. In Korea, it is still not that ideal to do international marriage since in the past, people believed that pure race, which means nation-state was quite important for them. Thus, I found this idea quite interesting and modern.
Before this week’s readings I had almost no prior knowledge of Latin American culture, as such it was difficult for me to grasp some of the ideas mentioned in the readings. In Ortiz’s writing I found it very confusing that he mentions when the Spanish Conquistadors came into Cuba they decimated the Cuban Native peoples. He then goes on to talk about his idea of Transculturation, the meeting of the foreign Spanish culture and the native Cuban culture. He writes that these two cultures were able to find a “middle ground” where they both existed and benefited each other. How is that possible if the Conquistadors first decimated the local Native population? Ortiz then mentions the import of Negro peoples, to act as slaves, and that they lost their culture in the move, as well as the movement of many other European peoples to the island of Cuba. I don’t quite understand how all these cultures could come to an equilibrium with a culture that was supposedly decimated.
¥ I found the reading from Ortiz interesting because prior to this reading I didn’t know of all the of all the ethnic groups that make up Cuba as a whole and dint have any knowledge on the subject. It struck me how these cultures had so many different origins, the most interesting being the make up of all the slaves taken from Spain. I had no idea that a lot of the population of this small island country was so diverse in this way. I also found interesting the idea of transculturation and merging of cultures. This idea sort of reminds me of a modern-day Canada, and being so diverse and accepting of merging so many different cultures into one. Like Canada, I feel like culturally speaking, the people of Cuba had to become a cohesive sort of mixed culture to make things work because of all the diversity happening in such a short period of time. Overall by reading Ortiz, it made me see issues I never knew were a thing getting brought into a new light and thinking of these issues in a new way.
This week we the readings centred around Transculturation and Modernity. Thinking about three different perspectives we discussed on culture in Latin America (Ortiz, Vasconcelos, and Cornejo Polar), I do think I personally agree more with Cornejo Polar’s concept of heterogeneity more than the two synthetic views. I think that Vasconcelos’ theory of “Raza Cosmica”, while it has good intentions, fails to recognize the racial divisions that exist globally and it seems more like a universe from a utopian fiction novel than one that can exist. The history of oppression and genocide of the nondominant races is not one that I can see being erased, not to mention it sounds a bit too much like eugenics for it to seem like a good idea. Ortiz’s theory of transculturation, while more realistic and accurate to Latin America’s reality, I think still seems to ignore the history of colonialism that created a hierarchy which still exists today. Thus, it does seem a bit idealistic to me that all the cultures merge into one and become equal essentially, when there are cultures in the region that are clearly dominant over others.
For the topic of modernity in Latin America, I found the discussion of the role of religion to be very interesting. Brunner seemed to present both sides of the argument in relation to whether Catholicism hinders the modernity of the region. I do think that to discuss the effects of Catholicism we need to specify which country in Latin America we are discussing because there are vast differences between them. The example of Nicaragua presented by Brunner shows how cultural Catholicism can be used to further progress towards modernity. I think cultural Catholicism can bring people together as a uniting factor (regardless of race, class, and generation), but certain aspects of the religion can be divisive and create barriers to progress. So I do think that the role of religion greatly depends on how the region approaches and practises the religion itself, but generally it seems to be somewhat of a barrier for progress.
Prior to this weeks readings I had very limited knowledge on Latin American culture and history, so this weeks homework made for a very informative and interesting read. In Ortiz’s work, I agree with his discussion on the usage of the more appropriate term “transculturation” rather than “acculturation”. Cuba has definitely had a distinct history and culture, in that isolationism eventually combining with modern globalization made it so an almost 1000 cultural development in Europe was forced upon the island of cuba in a far shorter time period. This made it so the Cubans were forced to adjust and interact witheachother in certain ways which evolved into their own modern Cuban culture. Ortiz also brings up important points on the indegenious population, which reflect overlooked but tremendously important aspects of their history and culture.
I agree with Cornejo’s position against transculturation. The “cosmic race” which is based in the Latin-American post-colonialist conviction of having reached a state of cultural homogeneity after the fusion and contribution between a diversity of Latin ethnicities, could only prevail if a society constitute of one social, cultural and economic group. However, it is also true that Ortiz? view of Cuba is one of the closest examples of what could be seen as transculturation in Latin-America. With the elimination of indigenous people, the cultural framework of the island is reconditioned for a different generational group. This knew popular group is exclusive in it is majority of indigenous culture and could be seen as conformed of a homogenous majority more than of a plurality. In my opinion, Cornejo?s heterogeneity is an epistemological approach that describe societies with constant exposure to alteration where acculturation and transculturation are complementary.
I find it very difficult, especially in Ortiz’s work, to understand what is being referred to as transcultural. This is because Ortiz places so much importance on the contributions of elements such as the native population and the African population, without spending much (if any) time describing how the cultural practices of these segments of the population were suppressed in the first place, acting as if they had all been interacting in an open and inclusive environment. In addition to this, I think that these texts, by attempting to coin a single, all-inclusive term describing extremely complex cultural clashes and the societies that ensued from them, are in a sense ignoring the fact that every place discussed is different, and therefore it is almost reductive to try to apply terms such as transcultural or acculturation to an entire continent, in which varying levels of interaction and mixing between cultures may be found depending on where one chooses to look.
Something that I found interesting about this week’s readings was the importance of Catholicism in Latin American culture. Religion in Western society has a completely different connotation, it seems, at least to me. In Latin America, Catholicism is a way of life, not just a portion of it. But it also does not seem to be taken as literally as it is in the States and Canada. The beliefs and overall values are very influential, such as strong family ties, community, morality etc but the scripture itself does not seem to be as highly debated. Maybe this comes from the fact that the main religion is the same branch of Christianity, unlike other places where it is a mix, but in Latin America there seems to be a unity in regards to religion.
Since the advent of the Monroe Doctrine, the United States have viewed the pair of American continents as their own sphere of total, unalterable influence; though the focus was guaranteed to eventually shift from opposing European Colonialism to strengthening the United States’ economy, the result of this mentality has seen Washington with finger in the pie of nearly every major civil conflict in Latin America since 1823. Even from the point of view of an American citizen, this is baffling; the spirit of the first American Revolution was something worth spreading south, but our actions since to establish economic and cultural hegemony over a continent that was never the white man’s are hard to stomach.
The readings for this week allowed me to understand the importance in defining terms in regards to social, economic and political changes and developments. The Ortiz article was very interesting to read as his definition of transculturation is one that I agree with. The history of Cuba described in the article was very interesting to read and the effects different cultures have had on Latin America is things one wouldn’t normally think about. I was unaware of the divert of the indigenous cultures prior to Cuba’s invasion so Ortiz highlighting this was eye-opening. However, I disagree with his idea of African slaves and the Spanish sharing a similar experience of ‘homesickness’ as there couldn’t have been a way that these two experiences would be similar.
Ortiz’s definition of transculturation is an interesting take which I agree effectively addresses many of the issues with acculturation being used, however he does have a point of view towards cultural identities and issues which are a slight bit too black and white without looking at the grey side of things. After reading over all the articles the most disagreeable point made was that African slaves had similar lived experiences to the European migrants as this goes against everything taught in my time as a student. The two sides were on completely different sides of the spectrum. It was very interesting for me to learn about the parallels of Latin American culture to that of my family’s Italian background. Both cultures are intensely catholic but in many ways follow the religion on their own terms, regardless of their heavy grounding in the Catholic faith.