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.