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!