Since almost two decades ago Latin America has been facing many different phenomena that make the region struggle. Events vary between themselves, from economic problems, through social, immigration, security and many others that can come to my mind. None of them is more important than other, but definitely some of these phenomena are more hurtful for societies. Taking the example of migration, there are opposite perspectives, and maybe all of them are accurate. Mexicans complain about how illegal immigrants are treated in United States, but we make a living hell for Central and South American immigrants that have to cross our entire country to achieve their American dream. There’s a book entitled “Frontera Vertical” written by a Mexican historian who specializes in Latin American migration and citizenship and he mentions many testimonies of immigrants people that have tried and sometimes achieved to cross the line and get to U.S. but behind every story there is a lot of suffering, separated families, danger and worries. I had a shock when I read a South American woman mentioned that a year before she crossed Mexico to get to the U.S she started to take birth control pills, because she knew she was going to be raped during her journey through Mexico, and she just wanted to avoid an undesired pregnancy. Another interesting thesis the author establishes is that the frontier between Latin America and United States is not only physical, but ideological, cultural, and mostly emotional; because is an enormous separation between people who leave and the ones that stay.

On the other hand; political issues have become each time, each elections more and more common. Technologic advances have been playing a vital role when it comes to complain about the current government or politicians. The main problem I would find in Latin American countries is what Dawson’s mentions in his book; left or right parties are ideologically different, but in practice, they are extremely similar. Most of the politicians in power are corrupted; one way or another, so people’s interest are no longer their priority, and promises they made to people seems to have a huge lack of importance too. But, what is even more worrying is the current situation many countries are dealing with. Mexico and Venezuela for examlple, are in a position in which the state is failing at leading its people… Do you think the reason is a lack or commitent of the politicians, or do you think “people got the government they deserve”?

Power to the people

• Batlle MC. La tentación populista: una vía de acceso al poder en América Latina. América Latina Hoy 2007 08;46:210-212.

In the present paper a summary and analysis will be made. The main objective is to understand which are the main explanations of populism, and what is the nature that defines populism from other political phenomena. In general terms, populism is a unique phenomenon in Latin America and in most cases it occurred in a similar way. Even though populism is considered as a characteristic in many Latin American governments, it is important to recognize that on the one hand, there are some countries who are considered as the ancient populists, such as: Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Panama, Chili, Peru, Colombia and Uruguay. On the other hand, when talking about modern populists; Venezuela (with Hugo Chavez), Bolivia (with Evo Morales), and Ecuador (with Alvaro Noboa and Rafael Correa) play an important role.

This particular article is about a book written by an expertise in Latin American studies. The main subject of this text is populism as an access road to power in Latin America. Therefore some facts are important to consider in order achieve the best understanding and critical thought about populism.

Media and broadcasters became extremely popular by the time populism was beginning. Latin American societies were fascinated by the new means of communication available; therefore politicians played extremely well their cards. Media is the cheapest and most effective way to reach the greatest part of a country’s population. The perfect scenario fit in Latin American Countries; where the middle-working classes were struggling to get what they desire and dream of having a better life. This working social class and the low class are the ones that are more in touch with any kind of information and propaganda, and sadly the most vulnerable ones. The article establishes that the bond between the leader and his/her followers or supporters can be the result of a strong emotive identification or a result of the evaluation that they realize and make them electable as the best option to represent people’s political and specific interests.

Populism is distinguished from being a quick and apparently easy response to particular situations. But those situations are not essentially simple or easy to solve, even when other conservative politicians offer more complex solutions and whole processes to deal with a social or economical crisis, people want to feel direct democracy, they want to feel they are being heard and understood, hence they hear want they want to hear. The easy and simple solutions seem to be the ones they have been looking for all the time. It is important to distinguish that in theory populism would actually work and the majority would be satisfied, but in practice the populism in only an ideological speech; a social from of the state to intervene; an specific type of monetary policies and public expenses. Populism reduces itself as a political strategy that is supposed to be a form of public representation. As the article mentions the interdependence relations between center and peripheries; then an establishment of an interclass alliance is made, this means poor/popular sector, middle-working class and the bourgeoisie are opposing to the “oligarchy”. When talking about social issues there are symptoms, problems and ways to solve the other two. Often it is thought that populism was the solution, but today it is know that populism is a symptom; the government such as the population, both of them feel this symptom.

Power to the people

• Fair H. EL DEBATE SOBRE EL PERONISMO Y LA DEMOCRACIA. Nómadas 2010;27(3):319-332.

In the present paper an analysis about the phenomenon of peronism and the question of democracy will be made. The article that talks about this linkage was inspired by a public debate that occurred in Argentina years ago; thanks to the famous TV show “The Simpsons” in which two characters argued about peronism; one of them says he would like to live under a “military dictatorship” as the one of Juan Peron, because when he made you disappear, you remained disappeared. This cartoon made many politicians, historians and intellectuals analyzed this old topic: if peronism actually has a bond with dictatorships and totalitarian regimes.

It is true that the government of Peron possibly had a noble cause and he wanted to achieve democracy on its purest form; representing and fighting for what the majority of the Argentinian people asked for. But at the end of his mandate his goals were not achieved. In Argentina a complex consensus has been made, because institutional democracy does not have a strong background on the country. The country has experienced essentially more military uprisings and dictatorships. Many historians have agreed that many Argentinian political practices can be defined as delegative practices, would be predominant from the conservative oligarchic regime of the radical caudillo Hipolito Yrigoyen, and this practices would be eventually emphasized during peronism.

Infinite authors have analyzed peronism; this has led peronism to be one of the most debated topics in social sciences and politics. The important similarities and conclusions that all those authors (from right or left ideologies) have made are that they blame peronism of having built an outright dictatorship. The most interesting facts about Peron and his tendency to build a dictatorship are found in other European political movements. This means, Peron was inspired by the Italian, Spanish and German fascist ideas, which led his political ideologies and his mandate far away from a populist and democratic sense. Peron visited Europe; when so, he was fascinated by fascism and this can be proven because he let hundreds of Nazi refugees enter his country after the Second World War ended. Also the focus he gave to his speeches, ideas, organization, censorings, social assistance, propaganda, political repression, his appearances in the balcony, and many other actions that nowadays are considered as a pure copy of Benito Mussolini.

“As a rule, Latin American states are weak. They have always found it difficult to collect taxes, enforce their own laws, govern their territories, and command obedience and loyalty absent the threat of violence (that we might call their “hegemony”)

This specific statement that begins the chapter of Dawson’s book was like a bullet to my Latin pride and heart. Is weird how this chapter made me feel many different things about my country and other Latin American countries. When reading it I sometimes felt really angry and others just sad and powerless. Is interesting and heartbreaking reading a foreign point of view about this events. By events I want to say not only the so known “guerras contra el narco” but everything that surrounds this dirty wars. The precarious situations in which many Latins live nowadays.

I’d like to focus in the case of Mexico, not only because is my country, but because myself, I’ve experienced some situations that make me rethink more than twice about this issues. The “narcos” are observed from two opposing perspectives in Mexico. The first one is that they are the Caudillos of their town or city like in the state of Sinaloa, the most powerful narco called “El Chapo Guzmán” represents a father to many people. I personally have met people who is part of his family, and it was weird when I met those people, because… At the end of the day they are just ordinary people, who study at the same university I do, go to the same clubs I go, have common friends and the most shocking thing is that they also want to do something to improve Mexico… I find this contradictory and somehow hopeful because even when those youngs are extremely related to drug cartels, they do not like it, or they want to change our country’s situation. On the other hand; in this same state and others there is people who have the image of a “narco” as if he was a hero; there are little kids who dream of becoming narcos when they grow up. (Actually, there is a Brazilian movie called “La ciudad de Dios” that is about this, little kids who live in the fabelas and later on become drug dealers. Is an awesome movie, cold and real, but is a must if you’re interested in this topic).  Poor people are the most influenced by “narco-cultura” because narcos are the ones that show all their economic power to the rest of the people and they improve their cities (they’re considered as the caudillos of their towns).

The other totally different perspective is the one that would be considered more “normal” or logic. People who is scared of narcos and who feel a deep kind of hate against all their actions. For example: in the state of Nuevo León, (which is the one that has more investment, the highest GDP “per capita” and before this narco guerrillas had one of the safest cities in Mexico). After all the narco guerras entire lives of people who lived in this state changed dramatically, even mine changed… my siblings live in Monterrey (located in Nuevo Leon state) and I was supposed to go and study my carrier over there, until my parents gave me the notice that two blocks away from my siblings’ house a casino was burned down by the narcos, so the situation was in danger. The huge amount of killed people every day; who appeared the next morning burned, hanged, mutilated and the entire country remained hopeless for too long. I know I’ve written a lot and I still have so much to say about this, but, I’d like to conclude by saying that the saddest part of all this is that (at least speaking in the name of Mexicans) we’ve lost the “power” of being impressed by this kind of situations; I mean that now is something of our daily lives. My question goes more to my Latin classmates: do you feel this way too?

The period between the years 1960’s and 1990’s couldn’t be called any other way but “The terror”. Dawson wrote something in his book that opened my eyes and actually hurt me because I found it extremely truthful: “Latin America becomes a region of failed states, never quite modern, and forever destined to be second-class, unable to solve its own problems because they run so deeply through the “open veins” of the region”. The reason is because among almost every country of Latin America, struggles and conflicts occurred between terrorists and terror states. This situation hasn’t really changed in a significant way. It is hard to say who is actually to blame, but in some point I would agree that the people has the government it deserves. Dawson established Latin Americans become a shadowy people, unable to live by the rules of civility, I would add that since these dirty wars, many countries of Latin America have been taking more steps backwards than forwards. We still observe many acts and crimes that are against humanity. Sometimes, governments, political leaders and much elite population find the different ideology, occupation, rage and origin as an excuse to discriminate and hurt (physically, socially and emotionally those groups).

Moreover I’d like to focus on Mexico’s case; when many foreign movements were a strong influence for the young liberal students, who at the time of studying international affairs started to realize their country was not accountable to the citizens. The Mexican state started a fight against the different social movements who opposed the regime, either if the movements were pacific or armed. The state used its entire police, military and economic machinery to pursuit its enemies. By the year 1968, things were getting pretty violent, and the government was only waiting for another step from the “rebel students”, the massacre of Tlatelolco. Al though the book’s author establishes that radical students committed themselves to the violent overthrow of the system, and the guerrillas they formed would kidnap, assassinate and bomb campaigns in their attempts to foment revolution, there is of course another version of the story that was not written by the secretary of public education of the government, but written by the threatened activists by the regime; this other version can be accessed thanks to the huge amount of the remaining existing testimonies. Whatever the real history is, nowadays, we who study history can reconstruct with a more assertive approach what happened in Latin America during the 60’s. 70’s and 80’s. The main question I’d like to leave open; is it thanks to the “civil society” that the government’s impunity became visible?.

I enjoyed a lot this week chapter because Dawson describes all the Latin American popularismo characteristics and passages in a clear and light way that he takes you back to those times. I’d like to emphasize about “Tata Lázaro” I don’t know how many of you have heard the “Tata” expression, which is quite famous in Mexican history; it means like father or a paternal figure that supports his people. Back in the pre-Hispanic history this expression was used to call a Priest who fought t and supported the indigenous rights (Tata Vasco). But I actually haven’t heard that the ex president Lázaro Cárdenas was called or even considered as a “Tata”. After remembering and reading once again all the ex president made during his period, it made sense to me that he is also called “Tata”. Another fact that made a lot of sense to me is why so many streets, boulevards, avenues are named after him in many cities in Mexico; not only in the center or north, but in the entire country, there is at least one street called after him.

On the other hand, talking about his political campaign to gain “popular” votes, I’m not sure what to think or say about that, because, indeed he achieved his goal and gained the poor/indigenous/non-educated people’s vote, which at the time was a good thing. But the issue is that nowadays that strategy is still being used by the candidates to presidency, (actually, the current Mexican president used this strategy, in addition, he bought electro domestic utensils for the poor Mexicans families, and “bought” their vote this way) but definitely not with a positive or genuine intention, today is all the way around; they use this strategy to take advantage of the non informed people, the poor people who is in the need of hope and candidates make them believe they are going to actually “fix” Mexico’s biggest problems (poverty is one of them). So… after reading the fragment of Lázaro Cárdenas, I wonder if his strategy was the same as the one of today’s Mexican president. Because at the end of the day, many of the changes he did were undone, and mostly because he strengthened the most powerful political party in Mexico. (This party that has had the power for 60 years until another political party won the elections, but in the present it regained power).

Talking about government’s power, influence and corruption in Latin America, is important to point out the Enrique Santo’s tango song, which I found extremely interesting, accurate and cold. I actually played it in Spanish and I appreciate much more what the meant to say, because he sings with some slang and expresses he’s view of the world very directly. I suppose this song is very famous among Argentinians and maybe more Latin Americans. The curious and interesting thing about this song is its accuracy on the lyrics. When he mentions, “The world was and it will be a pigsty. I know… In the year 510 and in 2000 […]”

I found this week topics extremely interesting, mostly because I’ve only heard of “Banana Business” but haven’t really made a profound reading or research on it. My perspective of the imperialist symbol that the banana has did not actually change. United States has been pointed for many times by the Latin American countries as the most imperialist power, even when the same US denies it. I remember the Monroe doctrine that literally established: “America for the Americans” when they indented to defend Latin American countries from European domination, but this was not a noble act just to protect us; it definitely was an act filled with a personal intention; have a big amount of control in America. And a dangerous or worrying significance of this statement is that US actually thought because all of us were situated in America it was on their natural right to appropriate of our labor. In the natural right they think they have (and they exercise) many military intervention has been observed, while they impose their “lifestyle” and most importantly their ay of thinking.

Another concern I would like to point out is the price of producing bananas, and I’m not referring to the money, but the social cost that come with transnational corporations and its interests. One of them is obviously the use of illegal substances to secure their mono crop, but that damages many plantations of fruits and vegetables. (just to set an example). On the other hand, the social impact that has not changed in the 21^st Century; the long working hours, low salary, bad medical conditions, etc. I mentioned this, because I did not really have scared or impressed myself. You might wonder why?… Well, because nowadays these precarious conditions still exist in our Latin American countries, such as Mexico, in which small children would work 8 or 9 hours in a cotton field with his father and receive no salary, besides not having medical insurance or even the opportunity to get education. But let’s not only think about Latin countries,; this happens also in Asia, the new best power economy of the world (China) has extremely precarious conditions for their workers. These examples are the result of an imperialist regime; shall we “blame” it only to US? Well, it depends on the perspective, but definitely blame it on the imperialist thinking.

Latin Americans lived in a fragmentary world; one person’s boom was always another’s crisis. I think this stills been true until nowadays; for example one of the most richest man in the world is a Mexican (Carlos Slim), and also almost 60% of the Mexican population live in poverty.

In the book it is established that progress came at a great cost, because the inequality increased; well, I would say this is very typical of Latin American societies because the positive economic changes that occurred in that time had a negative effect on the political stability and many of the times it came with great violence. When reading this passage of the book, I immediately thought about the current situation in Mexico, in which almost all of the positive changes in economy have extremely negative effects in some people’s lives. It mostly affects indigenous groups, who are not officially accepted by the same society, they’re just put on another side. When it comes to make a decision rather it is political, economic or any other kind, there are specific groups in society that are marginalized.

Another important point is the fixed political game, in the book it is presented like if it only happened at that time, but actually this political game has always been controlled by a small oligarchy, that group that has influence in every part of the society; people who has a lot of contacts, the ones that reassure their place in politics, and at the end of the day lead the “democracy”.

It is true in the textbooks that teach about Mexican or Latin American history the “good” part of the characters is showed, for example: about Porfirio Díaz (the 11 times president) he is definitely not a villain, he is the Mexican ex-president who changed Mexico, the one that introduced the railroad among many other things. But of course the negative repercussions are not thought. Talking about heroes and villains, it is hard to decide who plays what role; the Zapatistas and the Villistas were different groups that actually had the same interest and were looking for the same things to achieve, autonomy and they wanted their interests to be represented in a legal manner.. Indigenous communities across Mexico participated in revolutionary movements but all of them had ambiguous terms.

As always the Catholic Church is involved in the society and plays a role of a leading institution in Latin American societies; religion used to guide people what to do or not to do, the immoral behavior undermined their sense of order.

Freedom and equality have always been the product of local circumstances. Certainly it depended of the cultural context, even tough Latin America is considered as one region; rights would differ even in the same section, (this would definitely apply in the Mexican case, for being such a big country). The most impressive fact is that rights changed depending on the social class, the customs, languages spoken, and mostly importantly the gender. As a comparison, we could take the ancient Rome, in which only certain kind of people could be called citizens and had the right to vote wisely; in these two opposing civilizations there’s a common variable: women were not considered citizens; my wonder is, at what point in history did this happen? Weren’t women privileged and respected for giving birth? One way or another, man dominated the public sphere back in those times.

In addition to cultural struggles, this chapter reminded me to the “Casta Painings” because it mentions that in colonial Mexico there were at least eighteen caste categories, and the importance of this castes is that they basically defined your work, rights, clothes, etc (in a dramatic way, it could be said that the caste you belonged to, defined your destiny).

On the other hand slavery played an important role among the Latin American nation states. They were not considered as humans, but objects. They were sold, interchanged, replaced, among other horrible things. Despite the fact slavery was inhuman and evidently an unfair situation; it was different depending on the society. Taking for example Brazil, where slaves were easily replaced and their “owner” (whatever that word might been back then) wouldn’t really worry about their health. This passage of the Latin American history made me remember the feudal system and the feudal lords, who basically owned their workers; provided them food and a place to live, but under which conditions? They had to do all the hard work, same as Latin American slaves. So, could we say that Latin America has always been “learning” about their “colonizadores”? That instead of taking steps forwards, we’re only being repeating the same history. How can’t we realize we shouldn’t follow the same path without analyzing the negative outcomes?
But, at the end of the day it is important to recall and recognize the efforts that “slaves” made to get out of their situation and achieve “social equality”.

Nowadays, everyone is used to the huge territory of United Sates, but in the 19th century, everyone blamed the 11 times president Antonio López de Santa Ana; he did many mistakes while his mandate, he lost not only his real leg, but a war, and almost more than half of the Mexican territory back then. Therefore isn’t it ironic what a leg means for one or other country? On the one hand; to the U.S citizens it means the wining territory and their clever strategy to always get what they want, on the other hand; it means defeat for Mexicans, the rooted feeling that the north neighbor is manipulating our country and most importantly: the lack of unity. It is important to remember that even nowadays there are enormous boundaries in México, not only economic ones, but ideological, political and the regionalism is on fire. In that case, we could say that the present Mexico is extremely alike to the old Mexico. Religion remains important to some sectors of the society, such as being part of a political party, and feel identified with your region.

I truly believe that there were real and genuine “caudillos” but Santa wasn’t the accurate description of that concept. This term was very popular not only in Mexico, but in the entire Latin America. They were the idealized heroes: the ones who fought for their ideas, their people and always wanted to solve and improve the “awful situations”. Caudillos might have misled their societies. There’s this abysmal difference between what people were supposed to do and what they actually did. E.g.: “I obey, but do not comply” which describes perfectly the attitude towards the political regime of that time. While I read this part of the “Cause of all national disasters” I reminded the “Casta Painting”, which had a similar “name” for one of the “races” (NoTeEntiendo), the one that means I don’t understand you. So, I just concluded, that somehow, this was a way to keep on resisting the Imperial power, even though many Latin American countries have already achieve their independence, they still had some negative instant response to everything that had to do with the empowerment of the high social classes.

Heading to South America, it is Esteban Echeverría, the Argentinian writer who represents Latin America with his words. “El Matadero” which I consider a revolutionary text that critiques and exposes Juan Manuel Rosas Federalism in Argentina back in that time. It is obvious why this text represents the Latin America people’s unconformities.

When it comes to describe Latin America difficulties are found, not because there are any definitions, but because an explosion of ideas, tastes, colors, people and cultures within one same culture. There’s a song of a Latin-American singer called “Calle 13”, which tries to describe how Latin America is and he just starts to say many opposite concepts that certainly define this region. There’s a fragment that I love of the song and it goes like this: “Soy America Latina, un pueblo sin piernas pero que camina” which literally means: “I’m Latin America, a people without legs but walks; and I think this phrase is extremely related to the introduction and chapter one. This special region has been created by ourselves (latinoamericanos), by our governments, who often shape the school text books so young Mexicans learn what they want us to read. Our professors, who are not to blame; but only follow what they’re supposed to teach us, and in some way blind us with their biased opinion.

On the other hand, I found the author very accurate by establishing that “winners” write the history. We’re often thought about the independence heroes; who turned out to be everything but heroes, actually some of them didn’t even exist. Others were highly dramatized so we wouldn’t forget them easily; the perfect example is “La Malinche” (the indigenous woman who “betrayed” her race to join the Spanish) But, how can we know is this is true anyway? We also have the Spanish villains who “took all our richness and the ones that thought us corruption. And of course there are also all those mystic histories that nowadays have become part of the Latin-American folklore. One way or another, Latin America is the result of a mixture, a contradiction itself, but as the one who wrote the book; Latin America is so vivid, that it doesn’t matter when you’re describing it, as long as you get the sense of a unique place on earth.