One of the big themes of this week is the notion of a narrative, which I found to be worth exploring within my blog post – specifically, the ways in which narratives shape the ways in which we view the world, both past and present.  Chapter 1 of the textbook reading opens up with an anecdote illustrating the public service announcements that were often made on television that were framed to be educational.  While arguably these programs were often informative, Dawson notes that they presented the dominate narrative, calling it a “work of propaganda” (11).  I found this identification interesting, as words like indoctrination or propaganda often brings about images/ideas of dictatorships and censoring in my mind, yet in reality we are often exposed to propaganda unconsciously within our everyday lives.  As a result, I think it is valuable to question why we hold the opinions and views that we do – what are the underlying influences?

In lecture, a fact that really stood out for me is how the document with the simple phrase of “men are born and remain free and equal in rights” became a prominent slogan for slave uprisings and rebellious sentiments against their owners even though that was never the intention behind it.  It perfectly illustrates the way in which introducing a narrative (even when it is not interpreted in the way it was intended) can powerfully influence people’s ideas and actions. 

I also found Simón Bolívar’s letter to be interesting because one of the first things that he acknowledges in his letter is that it is a “candid statement” about his ideas – he does not claim to speak for anyone but himself, and yet throughout history people have used his letter to shape narratives about Latin America, often using his notions as a representation of societal ideals even though that is not necessarily always the case.  Jose Martí is another figure that has become revered from his role within the Castro Revolution in Latin America.  Although his works are undeniably valuable, both in the time which it was written in and within modern day contexts, it is important to note that his works and ideas cannot be fully representative of Latin America or even Cuba.  These narratives are a piece of a much larger picture (wow look I’m using metaphors too now just like Martí) and to accept them unequivocally would only narrow our understanding of what Latin America is and how it should be defined, if at all.

A question I’d like to pose is to what extent do the narratives of prominent political figures within Latin America shape the views of its people today?

Thank you for reading!