In the videos this week, particularly Journey to Banana Land, what really stood out to me was this constant distinction of ‘us’ and ‘them’.  The narrative of Journey to Banana land is similar to that of a tour guide giving a tour of the Latin Americas, specifically referring to the process in which bananas are first planted to when they are found in the typical American household.  However, throughout the entire video, I noticed that the voiceover constantly compared Latin Americans and their values/way of life to that of Americans – pointing out similarities and differences.  I think that although the video was informative and interesting, the way in which it portrayed Latin America as a whole was not truly representative of the immense culture and all the other things that the people of Latin America have to offer.  Rather, it seemed to almost view the Latin American people as inferior, speaking of them in a condescending manner as well as through generalizations (such as “the people here are very polite”).

Although there were definitely some positive portrayals of Latin America in the videos, they were done in a way that framed Latin America as an exotic other.  The idea of excitement, of foreignness, etc. prominently played on common stereotypes of Latin America.  That is not to say that stereotypes have absolutely no merit and should always be rejected, but I think that it is important to never take them at face value because they are rarely fully representative of what they are trying render.  I also think the point that Dawson brought up in the text about stereotypes being a basis for identity interesting as he argues that stereotypes “provide symbols that members may rally around in order to feel a sense of belonging”.  This was a fascinating point for me, because in today’s modern perspective, the notion of stereotypes tend to generate a negative connotation – yet as Dawson points out, they can also be valuable within certain contexts.

The document From the Noble Savage to the Third World discussed the role of popular media in perpetuating stereotypes of both the United States and Latin America, primarily using Disney productions as examples. Disney’s portrayals of interactions between Americans and the indigenous peoples of Latin America, particularly in the arguably unfair bartering system that benefitted the Americans isn’t necessarily inaccurate even if it leaves out details.  What I do find concerning about its entertainment value however, is the caricature that is created, one that arguably favours the Western perspective – in its seemingly innocuous humour, its narrative preserves many of the ideas of ethnocentrism and Western superiority. 

A question that I have for this week’s discussion is why there is a conflictual feeling in regards to the success of Latin Americans within Western media (e.g. the admiration and backlash of Carmen Miranda by the Latin American people).  

Thank you for reading!

This week’s lecture discussed slavery within the Latin Americas and how although we tend to think of slavery as something within the distant past, in reality we are only separated from it by a few generations.  What I found interesting was the different dates mentioned where slavery was abolished; and how even the word emancipation has positive connotations as our modern perspectives immediately associate it with the end of slavery.  And while I am in no way trying to take away any value from the ‘official’ abolishment of slavery, it is worth noting that the abolishment of slavery did not have some magical effect in the long held attitudes and stereotypes of society in that time.  Furthermore, the illegal slave trade continued for many years after emancipation, proving that legislature was only the first step towards eliminating slavery.

Another thing that intrigued me within this week’s material was the concept that no rights are ever “self-evident”.  I hadn’t really given much thought to this notion before, and I found it an extremely interesting proposition.  I agree with this idea, because the way in which we think of rights are very different today than in the past.  As mentioned in the text, even if rights are universal, the people who are entitled to such aforementioned rights have generally been an extremely niche group – separated distinctly from the rest by gender, race, and class (though there were always exceptions as well as other factors at play).  This concept of the nonexistence of self-evident rights is also interesting for me because it is still very relevant to the world we live in, whether it be the issue of the gender pay gap, the stigma attached to mental health concerns, the recent rescinding of DACA, issues pertaining to accessibility in public spaces for the handicapped, or universal healthcare, the list goes on and on.  Just as race and all the different categories of castes within Latin America are merely social constructions, the same logic applies to the notion of rights – these are nothing but abstract convictions about what people should or shouldn’t have according to the values of a particular group of people within a particular society.

A question that I would like to pose for this week’s discussion is how the concept of rights have shown the values of society in both the past and the present and whether that reflects or influences the mindsets of the people in said societies.

Thank you for reading!

What intrigued me from this week’s material was the power of symbols within the political spectrum as well as the commemoration value that they hold.  From a modern perspective, the theft of General Santa Anna’s prosthetic leg is a shocking event – and yet because of what that prosthetic leg represented during that period of time, it was viewed by many Americans as perfectly acceptable, even an occasion to be celebrated.  This sentiment of representation is shared by the people of Latin America as well, illustrated by the state funeral for President Santa Anna’s amputated leg.  Speaking for myself, I found it valuable that Dawson to the time to not only present such examples in illustrating the symbolism and meaning that people found in objects, but also in his acknowledgement of the peculiarity of some of these symbols and furthermore taking the time to explain the context and factors (such as religion and ideological values) influencing the creation of such symbols.  I also found interesting how subjective symbols are, such as how the same symbol within the same situation can be associated with different things depending on the perspective like how Santa Anna’s prosthetic leg was both an image of victory as well as defeat/cruelty.

Another notion that fascinated me this week was the description of the formation and the functions of the caudillos.  As some people mentioned in their blogs last week, social movements don’t usually end at the culmination of a large event (e.g. a war, a successful overthrow of a regime, etc.) but rather the lingering consequences of the social movement also need to be considered when we are looking at history.  The formation of the caudillos seem to emphasize this point, as gaining independence resulted in the breakdown of many social institutions that people had previously relied on (though more so for their symbolic value than anything else), like the Roman Catholic Church and the monarchy to name a few.  As Dawson mentions, in a way the caudillos “provided a link to the colonial past” in not only the similarities of their role in comparison to that of the Spanish monarchy, but also in their flaws.  The precarious protection that caudillos provided required unquestioned loyalty in return, and like the previous central government, there was widespread corruption within the system built by bribery and fabrication.  Overall, I think examining caudillos requires us to consider both the similarities and differences that they had in relation to the reign of the Spanish monarchy as well as the implications that they held in creating this new sense of autonomy.  

A question that I’d like to pose for this week’s discussion is to ask is in what ways caudillos reinforced or broke down the barriers of class/gender/ethnicity within Latin American society.

Thank you for reading!