It was interesting how photographs could convey so much. Each photo’s story could be interpreted or altered in different ways depending on the style. It was really intriguing to me how something as simple as the photo subject’s posture or the pose they assumed and their eye gaze could determine status as well. The latter being based on whether they looked right into the camera or off in another direction. I enjoyed learning about the ways that technology like photography came into play within the society of that time. It helped to give more dimension to the time in an alternative way.

Reading about Porfirio Diaz, the article seemed very biased and one-sided. Clearly, the author was a fan of the Mexican president and it showed in the way he was portrayed throughout the document. The dialogue mentioned a few times how “the American soul shudders at the mere thought of a third term for any President” (130) and how this contrasted with the supposed nonchalance of the Mexican people when it came to such matters. While I do think that a two term limit can be rather restricting if the majority of a nation favours that leader over any proposed candidate, having the same president for over thirty years seems equally restricting. I have a hard time believing that for thirty consecutive years an entire country stayed united with one leader. Even though the improvements made within Mexico under Diaz, such as the railroad systems, were significant there is probably a lot more to the story than I am aware.

This week the reading touched further on the shift from colonialism to independence for Latin American nations. Reading about the “scientific racism” (p.75) of western cultures influencing the view on race in Latin America was disturbing to read about. It always seems worse somehow, when people try to come up with logical reasons for their racism. Dawson mentions eugenics and similar sciences in his writing and the attempt to purify bloodlines. Something that really just reminds me of Hitler and his dream of an Aryan race. One thing that I had never known about and really intrigued me was the significant role that slaves in Latin America had in securing their freedom. Also, the life span of slaves in Brazil was shocking. Only three years of labor after arriving before they died on average. This really demonstrates how large the slave trade was that people in slavery were dying at such alarming rates and could be replaced so quickly.

Of the two sections on women and their rights the part that irked me the most was “Women: Dedicated to Miss María Eugenia Echenique” because of the way it generalized all women to be delicate people only fit to be homemakers. This was aggravating to read because I know of the struggles that women had to go through so that they were not seen in this light. That being said, it is not the notion of a woman being a caretaker or a wife that I saw as upsetting at all. It was the idea that that was all a woman could, or should, do. Having the option and choosing to do something, and having to do it are very different things. It really struck me as contradictory that men were always showcased as being superior to women and yet all the pressure and standards were put upon women. This really stood out when the author speaks of how it is a woman’s job to be “virtuous, talented…educated, energetic…well-read” (p.100) when compared to “Brushstrokes” when Maria Eugenia Echenique wrote, “men…who only think of filling their pockets and satisfying their own desires, who if they encounter an obstacle…become angry and trample over everything.” (p.98) The description of “virtuous” women verses men who “trample over everything” seemed like a very interesting and stark comparison as I read.

The Caudillos discussed in this week’s readings were interesting to learn about. I had no knowledge of them previous to this week. Reading about the time period, it wasn’t difficult to believe that the nations of Latin America had a tumultuous political time after struggling for independence. The Caudillos were men of the military who came into positions of power through their strong opinions and outspokenness. From what I understand, they appealed to the people on a more local level in ways that the Spanish crown had never been able to because of their distance from the colonies. For this reason I can see why the Caudillos had a certain appeal but because of their brutality I can also see why they were not ideal leaders.

Of all the readings this week, I felt most captivated by Hugo Chávez’s speech. It brought to light the fact that despite their efforts, many Latin American countries have yet to truly break free from the lasting effects of colonialism. Chávez references Simón Bolívar and his “Letter from Jamaica”, a document that was written over one hundred years prior to his speech. Yet still, the ultimate goals and ideals that Bolívar held for Latin America had not been reached. I admired the way that Chávez was not afraid to bluntly state that neoliberalism was what was hindering his people, and others around the world, from creating better lives for themselves. What I am curious about, is what were the accompanying factors, between Bolívar in 1815 and Chávez in 2004, inhibiting Latin America from moving forward?

The second thing I gained from the readings was a better understanding of how diverse Latin America is and how that affects each nation’s historical view and biases differently from the next. The heroes, for example, in each country. In Venezuela, Colombia and Peru, they idolize Simón Bolívar for his part in eliminating the Spanish hold within their countries. However, what surprised me was that in Bolivia, which is linked to Bolívar by its name, the citizens do not all praise him. Some people instead look to Tupac Katari, who died decades before the independence even occurred. The views within Latin America as a whole are numerous and even within individual countries the views are even further divided. It’s interesting to be able to learn more about what the specifics of each country’s background entails. Obviously things like class, religion, culture and heritage all contribute to a person’s unique opinion on history but these readings really emphasized this point for me.