The the title of this blog post suggests, the future of Latin America is uncertain.  The term ‘Latin America’ itself encompasses a large region of culture, history, struggle, and ambiguity that has no real pattern as it attempts to figure out its role within itself and in the grander scheme of the world.  As Max Cameron proposes in the video, Latin America’s future appears to be more promising than its past, as its society becomes increasingly egalitarian with more liberal and progressive political leaders.  Even with what we perceive as progress within Latin America, there are still many aspects of its society that arguably can be bettered though we obviously cannot hold it to the same standards as those of developed nations.  Throughout these past 13 weeks, we have learned about the conflicts that have characterized Latin America’s past, conflicts that I believe will likely have influence on their future to some extent as well.  However, even with the often ‘depressing’ topics we have covered, I believe that it is important that this is not all that we associate Latin America with.  In one of the very first lectures, we were assigned an activity to write down vocabulary words that came to mind when we thought of Latin America.  Many common words that were shared were positive, including things like “culture”, “music”, “dance”, etc.  When given the same activity in one of our last lectures, terms like “conflict”, “struggle”, and “corrupt” were more frequent answers.  And while I believe that all of these terms are valid given the material that we have learned, its vital that that is not all that we think of when we think of Latin America.  For myself personally, it seems as though we have come a full circle in terms of what we’ve learned about Latin America.  During the class activity I mentioned previously, one of my classmates answered “potential” when asked what came to mind at the mention of Latin America.  I think that ‘potential’ is a great way to describe the uncertain future of Latin America.  While the only thing we really know for sure about Latin America’s uncertain future is that it is ambiguous (coming back to one of the major themes we discussed during the first week), it is a future that holds potential.

To finish off my last blog post, I’d like to pose the question to everyone (since I only heard a handful of answers in class), what are the words that come to mind now when Latin America is mentioned?

As always, thank you for reading!

This week one of the things that I would like to talk about is the Argentine regime of the 1970s and 1980s, where there were widespread protests due to the disappearance of various individuals as a result of their perceived dissidence against the state’s authoritarian government.  What intrigued me about this was the prominent involvement of women within political affairs during this time, a rejection of gender norms even as the reasons for their involvement reinforces it, as they were mainly made up of mothers whose children had disappeared (‘Mothers of the Disappeared’) and were searching for answers as to what had happened to them/where they were.  The insistence of these women in their protest against the regime was admirable, furthermore, the ways in which they channelled their grief into action – action that arguably had significant consequences within the political fabric of Argentina (e.g. mobilizing foreign nations to get involved).  What particularly intrigued me about this was how to protests haven’t stopped, and how to this day, there are mothers who are still hoping to find closure, who haven’t stopped looking.  The new political agency of women, though borne out of negative events is interesting because it creates a different dynamic within Latin American society with regards to the changing role of women.

I also found the war on drugs particularly fascinating this week as many of its themes are still relevant in the world today.  However, it’s interesting to examine how the drug trade at the time contributed to the economy as exemplified by the line “at a time when the economy was worse than anyone could remember, they may have been the most important source of export revenues in the entire region” in the Dawson textbook.  The drug trade also seemed to contribute to the larger society in many different aspects.  Though their activities were illicit, they contribute to their communities by building schools, hospitals, housing, and other infrastructure.  Drug kingpins were the quintessential janus figure that’s unable to be clearly categorized into good and bad – bringing us back a full circle that we’ve talked about the entire semester, this idea of ambiguity surrounding Latin America and the peoples within it.

My question for discussion is week is whether the Mothers of the Disappeared movement would have gained as much momentum as it did if the government had regarded it as a threat from the start?

Thank you for reading!

What fascinated me in this week’s material about the uprisings and conflict within Peru were the comparisons that I found I was able to draw between it and The Slaughterhouse that similarly illustrated the discord within Argentina.  Although conflicts within both regions share similarities and have their own distinct differences, what stood out to me the most was the emphasis on ritualistic killings and the justification of them through the notion of ‘cleansing’ the society.  What I found most curious about the way in which people were killed was that though religion was not really at the forefront of the conflict, it was often used within a symbolic context during burials.  For example, the convention of mutilating the eyes and tongue as well as breaking the ankles of the corpse so that the victim theoretically could not recognize, denounce, or retaliate against their killers has many religious and/or supernatural undertones which I found unusual.  Even the symbolic nature of burying the bodies outside of community limits to highlight that these individuals were classified as ‘strangers’ or ‘outsiders’ is interesting as it demonstrates the amount of value that many Latin Americans placed on symbolic representations.

I found that this week’s material aptly encompasses many of the ideas that we’ve already previously discussed throughout this course.  The start of the chapter cautions against putting figures on a pedestal, advising that while “this may allow us to tell stories with definitive heroes and villains, to satisfy our desire for moral clarity. What we risk is gaining that clarity at the expense of understanding the past for all its ambiguity… If we view these events simply as horrible crimes committed by evil men, we capture only a small part of this history” (284).  This idea of ambiguity can be applied to the material of virtually every week thus far – I think that this notion is valuable because often when we learn about the darker corners of history there is a temptation to put various people into neatly categorized boxes of good and evil when it is often a lot more complicated than that.  Some other lines that I really liked from the reading are “this is the problem with paranoia; when you cannot identify the enemy by the uniform they wear, you see the enemy everywhere” (284) and “the actual existence of the threat mattered less than the belief that the threat was real” (288).  I liked these quotations because for me they gave a deeper understanding of why people behaved the way that they did and gave a degree of humanization to many of these unknown individuals that I have been reading about. 

My question for discussion this week is how the convention of ritualistic killings began – the textbook does not really discuss its origins so I am curious as to whether anyone knows specifically how it came about/became as widespread as it was.

Thank you for reading!

This week, one of the things that stood out to me the most was the use of media, particularly the radio in promoting political messages.  Though I had always known that the use of the radio played a large role in creating a shared community between the people and their leaders, I don’t think I really ever realized the full extent and the power that it wielded in Latin America up until reading the textbook this week.  What I found interesting about why the use of the radio was so effective, was because of its way of promoting a message without having people express dissent to that message (with the exception of turning off the radio).  In that sense, leaders had a tool that enabled them to speak publicly about their political intentions to a widespread group of people regularly without the inconvenience of constantly making public appearances and speeches – this was a more informal way of doing virtually the same thing.  I also found it interesting that Dawson noted the intimacy that the radio provided between the listener and speaker, describing it by saying “to hear the voice of a leader was to see them face to face, and to somehow be connected to power in that moment” (208) which is something I had not thought of before.

Another thing I found interesting about this week’s material was the loyalty that much of the working class held towards President Péron’s wife Eva Duarte, more affectionately known as Evita.  This fascinated me because within that time period it was rare to see a woman so politically involved as Evita was and so popular (overall at least, while she had her opponents it’s the general consensus that she was an extremely charismatic and well liked woman).  Furthermore, it is arguable that she was even more well liked than Péron by some, to the point where her name, along with her husband’s “can stir up visceral feelings to this day” (218).  For me, while Evita’s political power and charm made her an engaging leader to examine, the way in which she broke some of the gender norms of the day without necessarily setting out to do is what makes her someone to admire.

To end off, something that I took notice to within the documents was Evita’s speech in the to the people as they were clamouring for her to run as vice president alongside her husband was her description of herself as a “frail Argentine woman” (230).  Frail is not the word that comes to mind when I think of Evita, so I am wondering why she would have wanted to frame herself as a frail individual, and thus I am posing this as my discussion question for the week.

Thank you for reading!

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!