The Madres de la Plaza de Mayo this week was difficult to stomach. I cannot imagine the fear and frustration that those mothers must have been experiencing. Moreover, that the government was so unrelenting in its stance. Understandably, because how could they admit to what they had done. It is heartbreaking, however, when all they wanted to know was “whether [their] sons [were] alive or dead” so that they could ease their wonderings. As the mothers gathered in the plaza, at first they were undisturbed until it was realized that they would damage the government’s profile if they continued on and from there they were blocked from the plaza. The text goes on to say that international media had picked up on the story by then and that the mothers tried to use it to their advantage, speaking whenever they could of the injustices done to them.

While the events that lead to these gatherings discourage me to no end, the demonstration that they created was nothing short of incredible. Despite any other differences they may have had they all came together, peacefully, only to gain any knowledge of their children’s whereabouts or wellbeing. Furthermore, these were not political women, not radical reformists but working-class women. There is much to be said on the strength of women, and especially that of mothers. Being a mother at that time must have been even more nerve-wracking than I imagine it is at any other given time. What I picked up from this reading was the resiliency of these women. In class it was even said that these mothers still continue to gather today. Still wanting answers and wanting to know what happened to their children.

To continue on sounding like a broken record, I had never heard of the events of this week’s readings. The terror in Peru, Sendero’s war or even of Fujimori. The amount of history that I don’t know of is quite daunting and I hope that even after this course has ended I will continue on learning about the history of these places.

It surprised me at first that many of The Shining Path were university students. Maybe I had a stereotype of what kind of people would be in a group like this but as I read on it made more sense. What I got from it was that the excitement drew them in. Some first attended gatherings advocating for more radical ideologies and from there on it snowballed. The Shining Path also appealed to the peasants of the region, giving action to their grievances. The movement grew in rural areas. Eventually, the group began turning on the peasants and what they had started off advocating for. They began to treat them as pawns in their war.

In Dawson’s section of the chapter there was the picture of a poster from the time of the dirty wars. It directly made out to contradict all of the negative things beings spread about the war, which is strange to say in general, because not many positive things can be said of wars. Many people were growing concerned over the extremely harsh methods (probably an understatement) that were being used in the war. As Dawson says, “The advertisement challenges this view, insisting that their actions were not just clean, but cleansing, that this was a just war. Both extreme left and right spoke in ritual ways about these acts, believing that they were somehow engaged in an exercise that would purify society.” Pointing out the obvious, “purify[ing] society” is a phrase that should never be taken lightly. The amount of violence that occurred during this time is unbelievable (again I feel as if I am understating here) and the fact that it happened only a few decades ago is even more so.

The radio was an incredibly important tool for politicians. It made it possible for people in remote areas to receive information and for politicians to influence the citizens. There was also more of a social aspect to the radio, as opposed to newspapers. Reading a newspapers is a very solitary activity, whereas many people could gather around a radio in order to hear news.

Eva Peron’s story was very intriguing to me. I could really see why the people felt so connected to her. She worked her way up to the upperclass despite the majority of the people in that class having a deep disdain for her. She made the working class feel as though their issues were heard and understood. Her final speech was a very strong and tense moment. The clip that we watched in class of the crowd growing increasingly agitated as she avoided agreeing to run for the vice-presidency gave another dimension to her final speech. The people were so intent on her running that they chanted and threatened a strike. In class, we discussed whether her denial to run seemed genuine, whether she was playing the crowd. I personally did not take away the notion that she was manipulating the crowd. What I saw was a woman who became overwhelmed by a pressing crowd demanding from her what she would be unable to deliver on even if she wanted to. Her health was declining rapidly and she died the next year. I wonder, however, how these events would have played out had she been in better health. Would she have run for vice-president? If she had, and been elected, would the people have continued to love her in much the same way?

Raimundo (Raymundo) Nina Rodrigues, The Fetishist Animism of the Bahian Blacks (O animismo fetichista dos negros bahianos) (1896-1900), excerpt. (Dawson 91-94)

This excerpt talks about some of the violence that people had to endure under slavery, specifically in a religious context. Any behaviour or lifestyle that was not Christian, white, and European was considered inferior. Rodrigues explains the misconception that the upper class about the people they had brought over from Africa for slavery. They were under the impression that they needed to convert these people to Christianity and that they had no established belief system. However, there were already religious practices that had existed for generations and generations within their communities. In relation to the week’s theme of citizenship and civil rights, there was no freedom of religion in place to protect alternative belief systems. This is an important part of the video project because it adds dimension to the kind of rights that Latin America was lacking in and the consequences of it.

I found this week’s readings quite interesting for the most part. In all honesty when I saw the “Bananas Are Our Business” sections I thought that it was a bit ridiculous but reading about it was actually really fascinating. Every once in a while, as I was reading, I would just stop and think… this is about bananas. I mean clearly there were other factors but it was a bit incredulous at first. It was really interesting how something like the United States importing bananas for their nation’s consumers turned into the monopolization of the industry and then lead to them having so much control in a foreign country. I wonder what would be different today had the United Fruit Company not been so involved in the economy of Latin American countries. What really got to me was how the United States used their fear of communism as a reason to drive out the Guatemalan president, Arbenz.

Augusto Sandino’s document “Political Manifesto” was also captivating. The way that he wrote really held my attention. It was a very intense read, clearly he had a vision for the future of Nicaragua and how to get it.

The modernization of Mexico under Porfirio Diaz’s rule seemed like a step in the right direction on the surface and I think that the vast improvements made were beneficial but I also think they the uneven development of the country lead to more problems. While the elite in the country were able to reap the benefits of modern technology, the rural and poor communities did not have the same level of access.

Something that I found to be interesting while reading was the different groups in the revolution. Some groups wanted democracy, some wanted land and others wanted rule of law. They had different priorities, but everyone knew that something had to change. It’s interesting to see that while the country was in the midst of a revolution, there was division within that.

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.