Dawson explains in his book how the complexities of daily life in Latin America are becoming more challenging as we get to the 21^st century. In addition, he mentions the common future for Latin America as a result of the sense of unity, originating through language (Latin). However, how is it possible for this unity to exist beween 30 countries?

Although these Latin American countries do have common festivities, there are deep rooted divisions in society as a result of race and slavery. This article revolves around the independence of countries in Latin America, but the word independence seems to be interpreted differently by different cultures which diverge in their values and beliefs.

I found it really interesting how Dawson mentions the “hostility” between the Polanco and Ecatepec residents in Mexico. This is something which is commonly seen in the streets of Lima. The “pitucos” and the “cholos” who spread condescending rumors and stereotypes about each other, and how their arrogance allows for them to forget who they really are. At the same time, they are proud to call themselves “Peruvian”, even though they act hostile towards their own people, especially the “cholo” lower class population.

Latin America conveys unity in terms of their festivities and languages, and the history they have been through. However, in terms of individuals admired in each country as a result of their input towards independence, they change in importance to each country. This is because Latin America does not represent one country, but a combination of 30 countries, with different cultures, beliefs, and thus ideologies.