When thinking about the period that most Latin American countries went through after a transition from military regimes to democracy is difficult to explain. The description of the overthrown of the dictatorships by the 1980s, might be very crystal clear on how the events took place at the time, but what happened after is what has been a challenge to describe. There was a creation of many other social movements that contributed towards the establishment of the new democracy, however we can not say this was an homogeneous movement in all countries, there are different narratives of the political and economical aftermath. New political mechanisms arose, at the same time that crime rates increased, mostly because of the international trade of drugs.

Media held the perfect space for the representation of the struggles for human rights, one example of this are the “Madres de la plaza de mayo” in Argentina, they were a social movement that claimed for accountability for all the children that went missing during the military dictatorship, they managed to recognized about 115 people. The “No”campaign in Chile, with the aim for people to realize that it was enough suffering and restriction in Chile during the dictatorship, that something had to change. It was a campaign for freedom, for Chile to say “enough” and “NO more”, the video was inspiring and motivated most of the population who had lost their hopes to go out and give their vote making a difference in the overall political outcome at the time.

Media in general brought about a big change in Latin American countries. It allowed more population to feel involved through them in politics, and be part of a larger social movement. Inspired people, as well as it showed the prior suffering from the decades of military dictatorships, which also gave space for resentment to grow and therefore make people want to fight even harder fro freedom and for the past not to be repeated anymore.

When first listening to the concept of a dirty war, we might think about a conflict that became so extreme that ended up leaving a complete mess in a nation. Well it does refer to something similar. The concept of “Dirty wars” came from Argentina, and it was used to talk about a war in which it was not clear who was the enemy, therefore military forces treated anyone as an enemy. The period of the Dirty wars in Latin America is interpreted to be between 1959-1990, these period is seen as extremely violent, even more than  during independence times.

During this time of terror, we can see how the successful accomplishment of the Cuban revolution, made the division between the left and right wing even wider. While Latin american countries became proxies for the cold war, due to the fact that the USA was a supporter of all of those right wing movements, and provided them with military. An example of this is the financing of the strikes in Chile by the USA. Their biggest goal by doing o was to prevent the expansion of communism in the Latin American region. On the other hand, the USSR at that time supported the left wing-socialist and Marxist ideals in the region, for example Cuba, Nicaragua, and Bolivia.

It is sad to see that during this period a clear cycle of violence takes place from both sides the left and the right, depending on which country’s context we based on. For example the left was tired of so much oppression and violence coming form those authoritarian right wing regimes, and so reacted with violent revolutions to overthrown  the governments. However we also see how in some countries, especially in Central America and Cuba, after these left wing revolutionaries took power, they also applied violence against their enemies among the population. The Peruvian example given by Dawson is an exception to this, because it shows how both sides actually acted with equal violence towards each other, showing us that there is not a clear hero or villain in these stories.

As a personal connection to this chapter I can recall all the stories from my mother of the times of rationalization of food, and any kinds of food during the Sandinista’s socialist regime in Nicaragua. My uncles had to flee the country illegally because any boy older than 16 would be sent to war, a war that was sustained against the US intervention, which was trying to prevent the prevalence of socialism in the country

Populism as we know throughout history has been widely associated with Latin America. Revolutions that took place in countries such as Cuba, Nicaragua and Bolivia were believed to be lead to success by populism. The idea of populism refers to the believe that power should be given to the regular people. Populism defends the idea that the common people have the right to take control over the governance rather than a small group of political insiders or wealthy elites.

It is interesting to see how the boom expansion of the economy in Latin American then lead to a totally different governance style such as populism and communism. The same power concentrated in the elites and people in power, as well as a vast part of the territories being in the hand of foreigners triggered resistance from the common people at the bottom who were tired of sch inequalities to look for a movement to change the system and redistribute power among the people.

With technological advance and economic expansion in Latin America, came the use of the media. The use of radios and other forms of information devices for the population allowed a new way to make politics to arise. Now politicians were capable of communicating their ideas to larger masses around the country and get their speeches across the territory. It was here when revolutionaries such as Fidel Castro took their opportunity to persuade the Cuban population to join his socialist ideals. These communication we can saw allowed political movements such as this one to grow stronger.

Dugdale-Pointon, TDP. (3 March 2002), Peninsular War (1807-14), http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/wars_peninsular.html

The first research site I used is this website called “History of war” where it introduces the peninsular war between 1807 and 1814. This is relevant to the topic because even though this war did not directly take place in Latin american territory we know that the invasion to Spain from the French, weakened the Spanish administration in Latin American colonies. Creoles saw themselves directly affected by this because, as previously all the profit made in the colonies had to go to Spain, they knew that now it will go to the French kingdom instead, that made them feel detached from their duty to do so. Therefore in this moment of instability was the perfect time for creoles to look for that change and archive political and economical freedom from the Spanish crown.  We see how the period of the Peninsular war was the start of the movements for independence in Latin America, making this a relevant event in the history of Latin American Independence.

http://www3.gettysburg.edu/~tshannon/hist106web/site7/The%20Bourbon%20Reforms.htm

The second source of information I used is this website called: “gettysburg.edu” which explains about the Bourbon reforms established in Spain and brought consequently as a model for the Latin American colonies. This is relevant because these reforms implied aggressive and effective tax collections, less economic power for Creoles and the Spanish crown sending new administrators to the colonies. For the Creole at the time these political and economical legislation implemented in the colonies were an attack to their freedom and power. Therefore, they provoked rebellion against this reforms and later on, against the crown itself. This shows the creoles resentment toward the crown and their restriction of power. Independence was not only a move for political reformation, but a strategy for Creoles to get power over land, and economic affairs in the colonies. Once the spanish administrators sent by the Spanish crown left, Creoles could have absolute power over the productive economies in Latin America, which at the time were flourishing with the harvest of coffee, sugar and other goods such as gold.

So far this has been my favorite chapter of all the syllabus. I believe it is because it talks not ony about things I learned during my high school history, but also because it introduces us the reasons why Latin America is so influenced today by the US culture and economically dependent of it. While I was reading, specially the document written by Dorftman, I started thinking how even me as a Latin american did not notice this stereotypes and portraits of the Latin american people in Disney cartoons, which ironically were something I grew up with and would identify as part of my childhood. These only emphasizes more the fact that Latin american culture is so influenced by this north american culture which is seen as foreign, expensive and therefore superior.

The history of the Panama canal is a very explicit example of the political and economical power of the US in the region. We can argue that in this case the US intervention helped the country of Panama to gain their independence from Colombia, however we can not hide that this was done in order to fulfill their own interest of being able to construct an inter-oceanic canal, that would bring about a lot f economic profit and would not even leave a revenues for the Panamanians at least for the first decade of it being productive.

As said in the readings, it is incredible to see how many military interventions were there in the past in Latin american territories by the US, even to see how this interventions were supported by some of the governments in Latin america that were looking to get some; economical benefits from this example the overthrown of Arbenz, in Guatemala. They sould by many years the idea to the Latin Americans that communism is totally terrible and that good commerce with the US is the only road to economic and technological development for all this region.

On the other hand for me as a Nicaraguan was outstanding to red the “Political Manifesto” made by Sadino, that as we know today is known in the whole region as a symbol of that resistance to US domination. Although he was assassinated by the Somoza military, his legacy is still alive today even more than ever, he also follows in his ideals Bolivar’s dream to see a Latin America united.

This signs of crisis in Latin America were previously announced to us in the previous chapter. One of the things I found most interesting is the fact that while reading the “Plan de Ayala” you can see a very strong contrast with the description made by James Creelman about mexico and how progressive it was, how beautiful, that he almost made it seem to us that there were no problems what so ever, but what they did not see was all this crisis that was hidden growing to exploit at a future point.

On the other hand we do not  only see the growing internal problems in Latin america, but also how there are external threats, such  as the growing power of the United States. For me, as a Nicaraguan, I feel so identify with this poem from Ruben Dario. I find it powerful the fact that Dario being a poet in “To Roosevelt” he uses a very direct language calling the United state “the hunter” and preventing the Latin american from this threat that will take away their freedom, because the government of Roosevelt was now allowed to intervene in the Latin  American provinces

Mariátegüi, in his essay shows us his Marxist point of view about the economy. He is against the land distribution, and says it is better to go back to the commonly shared land and to an authoritarian system just like the Inca’s communism.

Another  very attractive reading was the called “La raza cosmica” which explains that taste is our first step to relationships. Describing 3 stages, first materialistic, second intellectual and third, aesthetic and spiritual. These caught my attention specially because I personally believe everyone has different interests and therefore this reading could not apply to all the population equally, however it is interesting to see this point of view, according to which the race in Latin America is of great pride because it has a mixture of cultures.

Latin America after independence in its process of establishing democracy we can see how many of the economies majorly grew. Most of them grew under the basis of an “export Oligarchy”, it is named “Oligarchy” because the economies were export based economies however only a small elite group of the population, mostly the landowners benefited from this growth. So this growth brought inequality between classes and made them even more evident. The global economy grew in a way in which Latin america would provide raw materials to the US and European countries and they would provide manufactured goods. You might see this as a fair distribution specially because the region was developing itself economically. However it was not. These form of economy created a huge dependency on the western economies, so whenever they had a boom it was a good time for Latin america as well, but when it was a bad time this was reflected terrifically in these region. Some historians even argue that Latin America never had a true independence, but rather replaced its colonizer master from Europeans to the United States.

Another interesting observation to make in Post Colonial Latin America is that in many of these countries democracy was not being actually archive. We can look at the situation of Mexico and Diaz who governed for 34 years. One of the arguments he makes on his interview is that people at the time were too ignorant to have democracy and be able to chose their own leaders, as well as Mexicans had too much of an individual mentality when it came to politics, only thinking about the self benefit and ignoring what is actually better for the society as whole. While I read this I was questioning whether he was right, and somehow still is, because democracy is not present today in Latin america today even, and people are still thinking only about their own benefit, this being the reason for so much corruption across our nations. As nations and individuals of society we must stop being so ignorant and seek for a better kind of democracy than the current one.

We would normally without looking closely at history believe that from the word independence, it would mean a win-win situation in which every single person in society would get equal rights, opportunities and freedom. However in this chapter of the journey of  Latin america we learned it was not that way. Latin america hardly let go all those already established social systems that were put in place during colonialism. Many of the theories argue how independence was just an economical movement trying to benefit financially those landowners Europeans descendants who were tired of giving all their revenues to the Spanish crown. So if all the marginalized minorities stayed in their same social position, when was Latin America’ s real independence? I personally could see how we are still trying to archive it.

It is interesting to see that after independence slavery was still very much alive in Latin america. Cuba and Brasil were the last countries to end up with slavery, and this was done through a very slow process. Cuba named this process the “Patronato” and Brasil was pressured by the British crown to accelerate this process. In contrast with the United States, the combination of races allowed people to have social mobility, this explains the reason why some slaves owners were people of dark skin themselves, however they had married or where the sons of a light skinned person.

The church was still having a major influence in the society, to the extent of determining where woman were going to stand in society. In Latin america the rights for woman were a process, thus nations first had to make sure they ended with the foreign oppression to then make sure all individuals had the same rights. However the church, made this process difficult for woman, arguing they should only be taking care of the domestic affairs, and nothing else. We can see that also depending on your skin color of family name, as a woman you could have access to some rights such as education.

Liberalism has never really flourished?

This is a question that I am sure every Latin american makes themselves, and not only us but the rest of the world. Liberalism has been these Utopian idea, something we strive to archive, however it is never really archived. Caudillos played an incredible role in bringing these idea of liberalism to Latin america, as they were seen as the saviors, leaders who would’ protect their nations against any enemies, against those who are willing to intervene. In Latin america, especially after independence there was a big instability in the forms of government that these leaders were looked upon by the people because they did take a concrete and fast action, they fought the enemy. It is interesting to see these emerging figures in Latin american societies, people who were rural elites, famous and renamed. This brings up the distinction of rural and urban that was left during those times in which the urban seem to side more with secularist ideals and central governments, where as the rural were more religious traditional believed in collectivism and populism, something that with time became more and more popular in Latin american societies.

The story written by Sarmiento, illustrating the image of this Caudillo “Manuel de Rosas” gives us a lot of insight on how we can imagine things were, however it can confuse us at the same time, because it is hard to make a distinction between what is fiction or reality in this story. The story has a tone of irony, it shows how Caudillos just decided to do their own thing challenging the systems put in place in those times. For example the action of Manuel, of giving out all the meat during the times on Lenten, is a was of mocking the catholic institutions of the time, as well as a tool for him to show himself to the the general public, his capital and determination.

The was one of the topics I have been looking forward to discuss. It is incredibly interesting to dig deep on how the process of colonization and independence influence what our latin american societies are today. Even now we can see how the different regions in Latin america have diverse cultures within themselves. The Caribbean islands and south america are very different, this is due to the pre-colonial customs, but mainly because of the history established through colonialism. We know for example in the Caribbean islands there is the largest population of African descendants, where as in the places like Peru, we still have some indigenous population.

It is something admirable, as well as something to question the way in which Simon Bolivar, being a man with privileges was one of the most memorable characters in the process of independence for the whole Latin america. His dream of an united Latin america, a strong region that could fight the oppressor still resonates and is the inspiration for many of the revolutions that took place in the 70s and 80s. Something that really caught my attention were his words implicitly saying how at the end, everyone was a slave in Latin america, I am guessing he made this argument because at the end all the work done, taxes,etc, were to satisfy as he says the “greed of the Spanish crown”, a greed that was insatiable.

On the other hand, another remarkable character was Marti, who combined politics and poetry to express himself, characteristic that has become very common in today’s Latin american writings. He criticizes the imperialism of the United States towards the region, and invites any reader to take action to prevent this from happening. He expresses the way in which “our america” has just suffered enough and that is not up t anyone else to come and try to solve problems or govern us, but it has to be up to us as Latin Americans to fin those solutions and that optimum governance for our communities.

Chavez’s speech was predictable for what I have read and heard about him. However, unlikely, for me it was a very inspiring speech and felt identified with most of his ideals of a free latin american region from any imperialism, as a latin american I can see how some of the critics he does to external governments are true, and as a revolutionary politician he is inviting all of those who agree with this ideas to stop this situation and start moving towards Bolivar’s dream of an unified Latin America.