The readings this week were very disheartening.  After last week’s grim readings, I was hoping for a more positive outcome to the decades following the Terror.  Instead, I was bombarded with overwhelmingly complex issues that continue to plague Latin America today, namely the war on drugs and the prospect of reconciling nations after the atrocities of the Terror.

Throughout the course, we have studied the reasons that people and movements become popular, with a strong and large support network.  We attributed the success caudillos had in gaining support to their affective nature – their ability to appeal to people’s personal needs and emotions.  Later, we determined that politicians and activists who spoke to the people, such as the Perons, grew successful bases of support because of their direct appeal to the masses’ needs.  Now, looking at the effectiveness of the Madres de la Playa de Mayo, I can’t help but agree that once again, the affective nature of this group, which works by appealing to others’ sympathy and emotions, greatly contributed to the success of the movement.  While the truth of the fates of many of these women’s children is still unknown, the group still managed to successfully facilitate the downfall of a dictatorship, at the same time telling the world the truth about the tragedies occurring in Argentina.  Clearly, the impact of emotion and affect on any person or movement’s campaign is extremely important – it can be the difference between success and failure.

For instance, Mothers Against Drunk Driving, a well-known and well-supported organization, helps raise awareness of the consequences of driving under the influence by appeaing to people’s sympathy.  Another example is anti-cigarette/smoking campaigns, which constantly appeal to the emotion by telling individuals’ stories of cancer and addiction; in Australia, the government has even passed a law that requires every pack of cigarettes to have pictures of brutalized faces and bodies that result from regular smoking, to act as a deterrent.  These campaigns owe much of their success to their explicitly affective nature.

Earlier this year, I went to a presentation/play called “Antigonas: A Women’s Tribunal”.  Like the Madres in Argentina and the women in Chile, the nine women who put on this performance suffered the loss of their sons, husbands, brothers and friends due to the government’s horrific actions.  Throught drama and storytelling, the women explained the situation in Colombia, which only recently began to improve due to an accord being signed at the end of September 2016; basically, the government has been orchestrating the abduction and possible torture and killing of its actual and suspected political opponents, as well as anyone who may be even slightly associated with these parties.  Clearly, this situation is akin to that of the disappeared in Argentina, except for the timeline (since it is still an issue).  By sharing their stories, bringing forth their disappeared loved ones’ clothing, pictures, and other relics, these women effectively appealed to the emotions and sympathy of an international audience to spread the truth and raise awareness of issues in Colombia.  At the same time, the women can find comfort and can alleviate some of their greivances through productions like Antigonas.  This production was a powerful example of the impact of an affective campaign – I don’t think I can forget it anytime soon.

Once again, I am astonished by the amount of major world events, such as the Terror in Latin America, that my education has thus far neglected to educate me about.  Imagine only just learning about the existence of World War Two – well that’s precisely how I feel right now, only it’s the Terror I am learning about.  Even if I hadn’t been formally taught about the subject, I’m still surprised that I never heard about it through other means (such as through family members who grew up during this tme, albeit in Canada).  I suppose I’m just shocked that the news and information I have received my whole life has such huge gaps in it – how North American for me not to know a thing about the rest of the world.  I need to start filling in these gaps!

The atrocities of the Terror disgust and disturb me – I never realized concentration camps and such huge political genocides occurred so recently.  I always thought of the late twentieth century as a time of social progress in much of the world, though I see now that it was anything but this in Latin America.  It’s hard to think that the time period of these dark ages paralleled the joyful and laid back times my (Canadian) parents grew up in.  Sure, this Cold War era wasn’t a stroll in the park in many places, with oppression and communism ruling much of Europe, which became riddled with violent revolutions; at the same time, Europe’s revolutions still seem far more advanced and ‘ahead of the times’ compared to Latin America’s series of revolutions and coups, which involved concentration camps and the arbitrary killing of thousands of people who supposedly posed a threat.  To me, these differences seem to cleave the world in two, with part of it ahead of the times, and part way behind.

Another intersting aspect of the Terror is the idea of terrorism.  Terrorism and ‘the war on terror’ only became a huge and well-known issue after 9/11 in the US; and despite knowing of some prior terrorist acts (such as the kidnappings in Quebec), I never realized the extent to which terror was used before 9/11.  Latin America had dozens of terror organizations, all acting quite explicitly and boldly.  If these organizations were operating the same way in Canada, the media would explode with news about it, and globally, it’d be impossible not to know of their existence and actions.  Yet, since these organizations operated in Latin America, far fewer people worldwide know anything about them (myself included).  This perhaps goes to show how much the US influences world interests, and how North American media can guide global media to report about and raise awareness of topics of interest in the US.

Reed, Drew. “Manaus’ Opulent Amazon Theatre.” The Guardian. [UK]. Guardian News and Media Limited, 14 Apr. 2015. Web. 15 Nov. 2016.

<https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/apr/14/manaus-amazon-theatre-brazil-history-cities-50-buildings>.

The story of the Amazon Theatre follows the ups and downs of the export boom and modernization in Manaus, demonstrating common trends present in Latin America during this time.  Funded by the rubber boom, the opera house was lavishly designed with the hopes of achieving a modern European elegance, its architecture mirroring popular European styles.  This trend of mimicking Europe to attain modernity was characteristic in Latin America during this era.

Furthermore, the theatre catered to Manaus’ elites, and visiting Europeans and businesspeople.  Excluding the impoverished and marginalized of Manaus’ population (indeed the majority), the theatre shows how the export boom and its results generally benefitted select few.  With its business directly connected to the rubber barons of Manaus, losses in the city’s rubber industry due to the development of cheaper plantations in Southeast Asia resulted in losses for the opera house, which closed in 1924.  This demonstrates a major downfall of having an export economy supported by just one commodity – a common feature of Latin American economies of this time.

This article is significant to our project because numerous characteristics of Latin America during the age of exports and modernization are prominent in the story of the opera house.

Leroy, Gregory. “Mexico in Colour by William Henry Jackson, 1884-1885.” Online posting. Early Latin American Photography. Early Latin America. WordPress, 23 May 2016. Web. 17 Nov. 2016.

<https://earlylatinamerica.wordpress.com/category/mexico/>.

My second source shows photographs of Mexico taken from 1884-1885 by William Jackson.  Unlike photographs in Dawson’s textbook, Jackson photographs cities and buildings rather than taking portraits of people.  This provides a fascinating glimpse at new modern architecture, infrastructure, and technologies, clearly displaying modernization.

For example, Jackson photographed many Mexican cathedrals built in European styles.  Roads and walkways paved with cobbles are also visible in some photos, showing how simple infrastructure from Europe was adopted in Mexico as the country modernized.

In photos of smaller towns, there is a distinct lack of European infrastructure and architecture; this contrasts the presence of these features in more developed, modern cities, suggesting that modernization was not uniform – it came first to large urban centres and spread slowly towards smaller, progressively rural areas.

The photography method Jackson used is in itself a feat of modernity.  His photos were developed using a photomechanical process that made them look like colour photographs.  The use of such a technique, which originated in Switzerland, shows how technological advancements were also adopted by Latin American countries as modernization swept the region.

This source is significant to our project because it provides visual proof of how modernity effected and changed Latin America.

Reading about Cardenas in Mexico, and Peron in Argentina reminded me much of the caudillo system of government that plagued some Latin American countries’ pasts.  These leaders greatly appealed to the emotions of the people, like caudillos, hoping to gain their support through their personality and presence.  Peron used the concept of clientelism (which was a major component of the caudillo system) to benefit Argentina’s economy.  Similarly, Cardenas used targeted and planned outward appearances to gain support; he did many symbolic things that made himself look very good to the people of Mexico.  Caudillos used the same method to gain popularity and support.  While these similarities exist, the regimes of Cardenas and Peron seemed neither violent nor overly corrupt (at least, from what Dawson mentions), which is a change from the caudillo system.  What both leaders use a great deal of is propaganda, something mirrored in Brazil under Vargas leadership.

In the age of radio and audio broadcasts, these three politicians certainly understood the significance of such technology on politics and culture.  All attempted to use radio in various ways to promote their regimes, whether for better or for worse.  Perhaps the more tragic instance of this is Vargas’ attempts to control radio broadcasts in Brazil.

While Vargas did create positive progress for Brazil, these changes were forgotten upon his continued insistence on strict regulations for radio, such as the mandatory daily hour of government announcements and propaganda, and his continued efforts to appeal to the people’s interests (e.g. tying samba into politics).  Of course, people never respond well to constraints, so every time Vargas attempted to limit opposition, his actions only resulted in more opposition.  This escalated, causing more and more Brazilians to hate and ridicule him, both on the radio and off.  When one of Vargas’ major opponents, Lacerda, was assassinated, many believed Vargas had orchestrated the murder, and thus even more opposition to Vargas was unleashed.  Finally, Vargas couldn’t take it anymore, and he commit suicide, having his suicide note broadcast throughout Brazil after his death.  Only upon losing him did Brazilians realize the good that Vargas had done the country, and so much grieving ensued.  This series of events is akin to the affects of continued bullying, though on a much larger scale, as it involved an entire nation.

I think the issue is that mistakes were made on both sides.  While Vargas thought he was doing the right thing by using radio to try gaining support, he went too far by disrespecting and disregarding the rights and freedoms of the press.  The people naturally responded harshly to these restrictions, and again, Vargas’ retaliatory actions only worsened the situation.  Eventually, the people’s opposition crossed a line, too, when they lost sight of the good Vargas was doing and focused solely on the negatives of his presidency.  This resulted in unnecessarily strong opposition, which likely played a role in Vargas’ suicide.  The worst part is that this entire saga was a lose-lose situation: both people’s opinions and the media were unjustly oppressed, and this lead to events resulting in Brazil losing one of the best leaders the country had seen in a long time.

Perhaps the moral of the story is to strive to uphold ethics and respect others’ rights and freedoms at all times, as well as to recognize a job well done and areas for improvement.  Vargas should have acknowledged the people’s opinions and freed the press, realizing that if he acted in their interests, he would gain more support than by forcing them to listen to him.  Meanwhile, the people should have recognized the improvements Vargas brought to Brazil, and voiced any oppositions more politely, respectfully and appropriately.  I won’t deny that this is an optimistic and idealistic view; however striving for this seems better than the alternative.

As someone who loves Disney (though admittedly doesn’t know much about Donald Duck), I found “From Noble Savages to the Third World” by Ariel Dorfman and Armand Mattelart very interesting.  It’s strange how such political views were portrayed in a children’s cartoon – surely the children reading the comic couldn’t be expected to read that deeply into it, so the purpose of including such views is a bit confusing to me.

As Dorfman and Mattelart suggest, perhaps the cartoons were meant to subtly introduce the concept of imperialism to children and ingrain in them a sense of entitlement because of their ‘higher’ status as citizens of the great United States; but then, to what end?  Did the US really maintain such imperialistic goals so recently?  Even if it did, why would people like Walt Disney, a man of the entertainment industry, not politics – why would he take it onto himself to spread political views to children (not even adults), as if helping the US spread its values to the next generation?  It simply doesn’t make sense to me.

Thus, I think that the cartoons were truly just supposed to be funny and silly.  Yes, I cannot deny that this was at the expense of people who were looked down on by those in positions of power (i.e. those of higher status), but isn’t that the way it always is, or at least was at that time?  Back then, this would have been normal – not right or politically correct, but it was a social norm.  That social norm has since changed, and I think Dorfman and Mattelart overlook the fact that it every existed differently.  They seem to apply the current taboo (regarding poking fun at minority groups) to this cartoon, which of course paints the cartoon in a negative light, portraying it as propaganda and such, with evil intentions.  This is a skewed analysis though because it ignores the historical context which suggests that there was no higher purpose or motive – just entertainment.

Perhaps it is my personal bias because I like Disney stories, but I honestly do not think that the cartoons were meant to harm anyone or spread hatred of any kind.  I am not naive enough to think that these sentiments were not fostered by cartoons like Donald Duck, but I think any hatred or power-over views spread, were done so unintentionally.  Think about it – how often do we accurately and thoroughly assess the consequences of our actions right now, especially when these actions are deemed acceptable and appropriate by society?  We would probably just follow through with our plans – like Disney when deciding to release the Donald Duck cartoons.

The bottom line is, I do not think we have the right to judge the Donald Duck cartoons so harshly, akin to propaganda.  If anything, I think the story of the Donald Duck cartoons simply calls us to constantly question social norms and ensure that when we act according to them, we are not marginalizing or persecuting anyone.

Vasconcelos’ essay about the social stages of a race and the final cosmic race was extremely interesting.  The writing was dense and difficult to understand at times; however upon careful analysis, it presented some very interesting views and made some good points.  While Vasconcelos’ writing seems crude and even radical in some areas, many of his arguments are carefully worded such that you would be a fool to even try disputing them.  This quality of the text made it all the more interesting – no matter how bizarre and incorrect I may have found some of his ideas, I can’t deny that Vasconcelos deserves a huge round of applause for arguing his position effectively!

For instance, the idea that a race will create more beautiful (e.g. racially pure) future generations by avoiding interracial marriage is completely logical, and from Vasconcelos’ point of view, with beauty as the quality of utmost importance, it follows that interracial marriage would be frowned upon.  Of course, thinking about it with free will as the most important factor, as many people today would, interracial marriage appears not to be an issue.  You couldn’t use this to rebut Vasconcelos though, because he effectively confines his argument to his philosophy – in order to interpret his position on interracial marriage, you must first assume that beauty is paramount.  Thus, Vasconcelos manages to keep the majority of his arguments indisputable, something I am fascinated by because it is a skill I think would be neat to have.

Furthermore, Vasconcelos is clearly against the liberal, rational philosophy spread by the enlightenment, yet he recognizes that many people believe in those ideologies and takes this into account when writing his essay.  He repeatedly refers to scientific theories and discoveries to back up his arguments.  He must certainly have a way with words if he can use science to argue the merits of a system that ignores rationale over feeling!  Yet his arguments do not become illogical when he supports his theory with science – it just makes more sense!  How intriguing!

For example, Vasconcelos introduces an interesting extension of Mendelianism and Darwinism – that higher order species (like humans) are capable of artificial selection, while lesser species are only capable of natural selection.  He uses this concept to argue that humans (and not other lesser species) can attain racial beauty and the third stage of social development through Mendelianism – utilizing the concept that artificial selection via people choosing certain beautiful individuals to be with would cause desirable traits to be passed to new generations.  Meanwhile, Darwin’s natural selection must be avoided since it is influenced by people’s vices due to human nature, and interracial marriage would therefore be likely, causing ugliness.  In this way, Vasconcelos twists science to his purposes and effectively supports his thesis.

Despite his well-written piece, Vasconcelos’ essay does have flaws: some arguments fall through when he refuses to take reality into account.  This works for most of the essay, which remains theoretical; however at the end when he asserts that Latin America (and eventually other races) will reach the revelation stage of social development, his ideas no longer make as much sense.  Throughout the essay, Vasconcelos points out that humankind has flaws that prevent humans from ever reaching the third stage of development.  Moreover, he mentions that these imperfections are human nature, and thus nothing can change or correct them, implying that it is literally impossible for humans to reach his proposed third social stage.  This directly contradicts his hypothesis that Latin America will reach the stage of revelation.  Another illogical argument is that people who are ugly will voluntarily not procreate, contributing to a process of “voluntary extinction” of the ugly.  This is simply not realistic, no matter how utopian Vasconcelos is!

This essay was a truly fascinating snapshot into the various philosophical views of the time period.

As a female in engineering, I’ve listened to more than my fair share of comments both for and against feminism; I’ve also experienced sexism, for better and for worse.  High school technological design classes were always male-taught and male-dominated, and unfortunately my teacher seemed to hate having girls in the class, so this was a rather negative experience of sexism.  Now, in university, I am told that some co-op placements are specifically reserved for girls to encourage their involvement in the field of engineering.  While some see this as a positive form of sexism, it is still an insult to me because I do not want to be selected for a co-op placement based on my sex – I want to be chosen based on my academics and extracurricular involvement, just like every other person applying.

After some thought, I’ve discovered that my position on feminism lies somewhere in the middle, holding nothing against men and other sexes while hoping for equal opportunity for all genders and sexes.  It is interesting to see how Maria Eugenia Echenique and Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta view feminism, because their views are so opposite and so strongly for or against it.  In fact, as I read both articles, I realized I do not truly agree with either author.

Echenique advocates for women’s rights and euqality, something I agree with.  However, she also seems to think that women should reject their creativity and sentimentality to become more like men, who are supposedly rational and scientific.  This I do not agree with so much.  First of all, she makes a broad generalization about males, ignoring the fact that not all men are the same; and she also ignores men’s creativity and sentimentality.  Secondly, she thinks that to have equal rights and roles as men, women must change the way they think and behave to be more male.  This is not true at all!  Women should keep their unique attributes and apply their different perspectives to their new (traditionally male-dominated) roles – this promotes diversity in ideas and behaviours in those roles, and it lets women stay true to who they are.  You shouldn’t have to change who you are just to take an opportunity.

I agreed even less with what Sagasta had to say.  I won’t deny that there are intrinsic differences between males and females, but this doesn’t mean that either is confined to a particular destiny, as Sagasta asserts.  All people should be allowed to reach for their dreams, no matter what these are; and all should have equal opportunity to achieve these dreams.

While the feminist movement has since brought about much positive change in terms of gaining more equal rights and more equal opportunity for women, some inequality is still present today, and some methods used to promote female involvement are still (unfair) forms of sexism.  Clearly, the process for attaining true equality is very complicated, and it doesn’t always take a turn for the better.  It is wise to always be aware of both sides of the debate when rights and equality come into question, to constantly reevaluate the supposed progress that rights movements have made, and to celebrate the successes (however small) that each movement has achieved – for it is only with these small steps and gradually-changing societal views that equality is attained.

A couple years ago when I was in Brazil, I visited the city of Manaus – a city surrounded by the Amazon rainforest.  Due to its advantageous location, Manaus was highly involved in the business of extracting and exporting rubber from the Amazon’s abundant rubber trees during the age of exportation.  The wealth acquired by the area in that era is bluntly evident in the form of a grandiose opera house, one of the city’s main attractions.  While the opera house is a beautiful building with elegant pillars and staircases, red velvet seats, ceilings adorned with painted frescoes, expensively furnished rooms, and a mosaic-tiled dome, many residents of Manaus despise the building and what it stands for.  Built by the wealthy barons who prospered during the controversial rubber boom, locals believe that the opera house was constructed using blood money.  This is not an unfounded claim, for the rubber boom saw much violence as foreign traders and investors unfairly treated local people and forced them to harvest rubber in brutal conditions.  Furthermore, these foreigners disrespected land claims and the natural environment, as well as the local people’s normal way of life, completely disrupting their community.  The rubber business only profited the few who owned and monopolized it, thus some elites became very wealthy at the expense of the local majority.  This unfortunate trend of violence and inequality is sadly consistent with Dawson’s descriptions of the impacts of the exportation era in Latin America.

On an entirely different note, Dawson mentions that the governments of many countries in Latin America adopted positivism during the export era, thus authoritatively controlled their nations without input from their citizens because they assumed that the citizens would not even understand their own interests.  This way of thinking makes it easy for the government to gain and possibly abuse absolute power since the citizens are so docile and disinterested/not involved in politics.  Of course, there would have been some who stood up to the government; however it seems that the people truly did think the government was acting in their best interests because no major rebellions or insurgencies occurred (that I know of from Dawson’s text).  It is unfortunate that such a dystopian form of government is evident in so many parts of history around the world, not just during this time period in Latin America.

Finally, I find it interesting that business owners found it advantageous to ‘protect the virtue’ of their female employees in order to reduce the risk of unions and revolts against the employer.  Despite gendered wage differences, this is still a considerable amount of fair treatment being offered to women in a time when this would have been unheard of elsewhere.  It is fascinating that the employers (likely all men at the time) had the foresight to treat women so well, and I wonder if this is due to a cultural belief or tradition that the men of Latin America may have respected, or if the women were involved in making this fairer treatment happen.

While the nineteenth century was a time when most countries gained a higher level of civilization through liberalism, Latin America seemed to go backwards from civilization to barbarianism, through the system of Caudillos.  Caudillos appealed to the people’s sense of feeling and their short-term and easily-fixable problems, which spread their popularity.  This method was smart – it focused on gaining the support of the masses and understood how the governing body should interact with its supporters; however, its execution was poor because there were no morals upheld in this system, and it quickly deteriorated into madness and violence.  For instance, Caudillos put up fronts and appearances, and competition between them resulted in regional conflicts that involved far more people than just the rival Caudillos.

This is where liberalism comes in.  While liberalists in Latin America failed to appeal to the people (leading to the vast discontent toward liberal ideals), they had the right idea concerning how to govern in the long-term and produce long-term progress without nearly so much corruption as the Caudillo system.  In short, the Caudillo system is like a Band-Aid, whereas liberalism is more like a vaccine or cure.  Since hindsight is twenty-twenty, it is evident that of course liberalism would have been a better choice for Latin America than the Caudillo system, however back then, the people didn’t have the same think-to-the-future mentality that many people today have.  Caudillos would have seemed better, and it was certainly pitched to them in a much grander light than liberalism, so that is the system that gained power.

Furthermore, liberalism failed to grab hold of Latin America because the region was far from ready to adopt that level of civilization.  Latin America was still extremely young and unstable at this point, especially compared to the long-established civilizations in Europe, which had years to organize social and political structures.  Thus while Europe was ready for change, Latin America still had slavery, indigenous servitude and the casta system – all of which divided its people and contributed to the region being decidedly unready for liberalism.  While other areas of the world acted like the mature adult, looking to the future and keeping morals in mind, Latin America was still an immature child that delighted itself in relatively petty conflicts with no concept of morals.

Youth and instability cannot be the only reasons for Latin America’s lack of progression, though, for North American nations were also quite young and yet managed to organize themselves civilly and accept liberalism.  I am still struggling to understand why North America and Latin America developed so differently given their similar origins.  Even today, Latin America is behind in so many aspects (e.g. politically, socially, economically, and developmentally) and North American countries are leaders in some of these aspects.  How could things have gone so vastly differently in North America compared to Latin America?  Is Latin America’s ill fortune with progress and development rooted all the way back to its conception?  How could Latin America not ‘catch up’ to other countries (in regards to development) between its conception and now?  Why did North America never struggle with this, like Latin America did?  What other regions of the world have shared Latin America’s struggles, and can they somehow act as a guide to show Latin America how to get past their roadblocks to progress?

The stories of independence in Latin America are a far cry from the only one I’ve ever had to know about, namely Canada’s.  In Canada, we gained independence way later than other countries, and we did it diplomatically, consulting Britain and reaching agreements through negotiations rather than by violently expelling our sovereignty.  As a result, Canada never suffered under the same trials and tribulations faced by many countries in Latin America (though it did have its own troubles).  Of course other factors were at play here, such as the fact that the colonial era in Canada never had a caste system that so influenced the rebellions in Latin America.  And so, I find reading about other nations’ routes to independence rather strange because it seems so foreign, even if these nations’ methods were more common than my own country’s.  I feel as if there is a disconnect in the history I have learned all my life in the Ontarian school system, and the history of other areas of the world.  I realize that I truly wish we were taught history from numerous more global viewpoints, rather than just from Canada’s!

Coming from a nation that, to my knowledge, has never endorsed or had a culture involving slavery, I cannot seem to fathom just how influential slavery and slave rebellions were to the independence and rights movements of many Latin American countries.  I never realized that such oppression would drive entire nations to fight for their freedom.  Again, since I’ve only ever viewed independence from a Canadian standpoint, in which the driving factor for the establishment of one united country had nothing to do with rights and everything to do with the logistics of managing such a huge territory and defending it from the US, the notion that people first fought for their rights and, consequently, their freedom seems backward to me.  Canada was long established before major issues in oppression and inequality were solved (some only as recently as the 1980s, and some still unresolved).  I am surprised by how different I find Canada and Latin American countries, since essentially, both originated in the same way (i.e. through colonization).  Perhaps this has to do with who the colonizers were (e.g. the British and French versus the Spanish and Portuguese), however I think there must be more to it than that, even if I cannot pin-point what these factors are.

Some questions:

• Why did Canada never have slavery?  Did Europe have slavery, and if not, then why would Europe’s colonies in the New World have such prominent slavery and oppression?
• Are some countries in Latin America still in a state of political change and reform?
• Have all countries in Latin America now adopted democratic governmental structures?  Why or why not?
• Why was Canada’s route to independence so different from other countries’ routes to independence?