Continue reading →

This chapter and its contents were extremely shocking to read. The level of violence across so many different countries in Latin America is a very tragic anomaly. It was interesting to me that basically all of the government who were leading vicious and unfair attacks on civilians were not in office because they had been voted in- but were there by corrupt force. Of course there is a connection to note there- that when your country is being run by somebody who doesn’t unanimously deserve to be there, violence will ensue.
I looked more into the “dirty war” that happened specifically in Argentina and found the details of this conflict specifically, especially disgusting- for lack of a better word. The Junta would use freeze the bodies of their victims and then use those bodies to stage attacks by their enemies. Thats pretty crazy.
Its surprising to me that this violent era ended so recently and Argentina is one of, if not the most successful and well functioning countries in Latin America (well as far as GDP goes, and from my very limited knowledge of the region as a whole) today. I wonder how they made such a big turn around. And i wonder if there is still a big divide to be felt in the country today.

My first source is a book called “Caudillos in Spanish America 1800-1850” written by John Lynch in 1927. This book will be extremely helpful in adding information and insight into our video project about Juan Manuel De Rosas and caudillism in Latin America.  Chapter 6 in the book (pages 241 to 274) is titled “Juan Manual De Rosas: Argentina 1829-1852.” This chapter is filled with details about Rosas’ personal and political life. The chapter begins with Rosas’ early life and how it contributed to his rise as the most infamous caudillo in Argentina. It goes on to paint a clear picture of what Argentina was like while Rosas led. The chapter concludes with the collapse of Rosas and his power: “at the end, Rosas found himself isolated in a situation where personal sovereignty and individual allegiance were not enough, and where his own client groups, conscious of a new balance of power, did not have the commitment or the will to save him” (Lynch 1927, 274). By examining his experience as a caudillo, it will shed a light onto the bigger picture of caudillism in Latin America and allow our group to create an organized and educational video. “Rosas proved the limits as well as the strengths of caudillism.” (Lynch 1927, 274) “Caudillos in Spanish America 1800-1850” will also be helpful as it looks at three other famous caudillos in depth: Jose Antonio Paez of Venezuela, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna of Mexico, and Rafael Carrera of Guatemala. Being able to contrast these caudillos will be helpful in understanding the details of caudillism and creating our project.

My second source is called “Problems in Modern Latin American History” by Joseph Tulchin. Narrowing down the content of this book, chapter 2 is called “Making Sense of Caudillos and “Revolutions” in Nine-teeth Century Latin America.” This chapter attempts to do exactly that.
Tulchin states that “historians either sang the praises of caudillos, or vilified them, depending on each author’s political allegiance” (Tulchin 1994, 37). It is interesting that caudillos were either loved or hated depending who you asked. Knowing that caudillos can be contraversial depending on your political view- My group will try and remain as neutral as possible when examining the actions and endeavors of caudillo leaders in Latin America in our video project.

On top of these two sources, we will also use chapter 2 “Caudillos Versus the Nation State” (Pages 45-71) in our textbook by Alex Dawson. There are some great insights in there about Rosas, and Esteban Echeverria’s opinion on Rosas, that will be helpful.
Work Cited:

Dawson, Alexander. “Latin America Since Independence: A History with Primary Sources.” 1967.

Lynch, John. “Caudillos in Spanish America 1800-1850.” 1927.

It was very cool to learn about the effect that radio had on Latin American politics when it was introduced. I think the radio helped to propel populism because it was a method of media that was easily accessed by everybody- regardless of where you were from or your level of literacy. The radio allowed the working class and lower class to feel united. And in a way, the radio kind of broke the wall between the elites and the lower class. If the elites wanted to feel part of the nation- they had to listen to the same radio stations as the rest of the country.
It’s interesting to think about the time when radio was introduced into the world. It must have been an amazing innovation for people who had never before been able to have an opinion about politics or access to information. We have never experienced living in a world without mass media- I can’t imagine what it would be like to not have radio…or television or Facebook. Even though it is sort of an illusion, it’s always nice to go on Facebook and feel a connection to other people who are feeling and thinking similar thoughts to your own.
I also liked learning about Cardenas. The way he lead in Mexico seemed very impressive to me. The way he lead is how I imagined government worked before I was old enough to know better. The fact that he gave up his a lot of his hard earned salary to people who needed it more, went and visited different regions in his giant country and did his best to make sure everyone, especially the most oppressed feel heard and respected- was very admirable.

Reading about Zapata and Villa leading the way through the Mexican revolution was pretty neat. These two were key players in the Revolution, and wanted to fight for the people and for rightful land ownership. Yes, some will argue that these leaders were violent. I guess I can overlook the violence, because I’m a super humanitarian and believe in equal rights for everybody- and since this was the cause that was being fought for, it might have been necessary to be violent. It’s inspiring to see individuals over throw unjust governments and do whatever it takes to make real change happen.

I can’t help but think about all of the issues regarding land that are still prevalent in today’s world. It’s interesting that even in Canada, there are tons of issues with the government overthrowing and abusing the land of indigenous communities. This issue has been going on since colonization, and I think it’s only a matter of time before Canada has a little revolution of it’s own.
Today, in a lot of Latin American countries, land ownership is respected and indigenous rights are more valued and upheld than here in Canada. I think we can attribute that feat to some of these LA leaders, like Villa and Zapata.

It was also interesting to read about workers rights in Latin America. It is very sad to read about the workers in Argentina trying to fight for their rights and being murdered for it. I can’t help but think that even though there has been progress in the last 100 years, workers ESPECIALLY in rural areas of Latin America still don’t experience adequate rights. It seems to be an ongoing issue that unless you are middle to upper class, and close to the city limits, it is always going to be more difficult for you to experience equality when it comes to your livelihood.

This chapter was about the export boom and development of Latin America. I found it interesting when Dawson mentions that even today in Latin America, there is a mix of the traditional old world and the modern new world. I noticed this myself while traveling in Central America last year. Some Latin American people are completely devoted to tradition, while others are not. I guess this is common everywhere in the world, but the divide was certainly more noticeable in Latin America. Especially from place to place and person to person.

It was interesting to discuss this topic in class, as I had never considered the difference between agricultural exports vs technological exports. One point made by Barbara, was that even though most Latin American countries have an export economy, usually they don’t do as well as Canada for example, because of their “monoculture.” Exporting only one or few types of goods can be great for the economy when the world is after the product- but devastating as soon as the world doesn’t need that product. This helped explain to me why a lot of Latin American countries don’t have a consistently booming economy.

This week the reading was heavy. The title of the chapter is misleading, as the majority of folks did not experience anything close to equal human rights in the New Republic.

Something that stood out to me was the 100 year span between when the first country in LA abolished slavery to when the last country finally abolished slavery.
Another part of the text that stood out to me was the fact that there are little to no first hand accounts from slaves themselves during this time period. Of course it makes sense because of the lack of rights & iliteracy rates, but I’m sure it worked in the slave owners & governments favor to have not had the slaves be unable to communicate their feelings and experiences. I guess that is why it took so long for slavery to be abolished. If the general, world population could have had access and knowledge about the true human rights abuses going on during the time… instead of only seeing written accounts from white men talking about how “primitive” and “destructive” people of color are… I’m sure slavery might have come to a close sooner.

The different accounts and anecdotes about how systems and slavery worked in Latin America during the 17 and 1800’s was so shocking and horrifying. Slaves in LA and in Brazil specifically were so indispensable- Dawson explains the difference in white and black life expectancy, and describes the working conditions in the fields and in one excerpt explains how slaves usually died within the first 3 years of arriving on a plot of land in Brazil. Reading about human life being so invaluable was extremely unsettling.

Dawson states that slavery is a “stain” in the region’s history- and I just think that’s not nearly a powerful enough metaphor to describe the atrocities committed by whites during the period of slavery. I feel the same way about how little attention the USA gives to their slave history, and even how much Canadian history is curved to overlook how forceful and brutal colonizers were to indigenous people. It’s sad to say I wasn’t surprised by the fact that I had never heard anything about how brutal the system of slavery was in Latin America. It seems as though if a tragedy happens to people of colour, it’s simply not talked about as much or as important as tragedies that affect white people.

We live in a time period where slavery has been formally abolished- However, even though it has technically been abolished, it still very much exists today in many different regions, in many different forms. I’m not super well versed on the topic, but I know that in some Latin American countries, labor laws are still sooooo loose, and only selectively enforced… Governments and landowners still very much take advantage of their workers. I’ve done some work with an NGO called OXFAM, which does a lot to call attention to these injustices today, and make sure that workers know their rights and can escape bad situations if they need to. It’s interesting to read about LA history in the 17 & 1800’s and see that though there has been progress- prejudice and injustice is still being dragged into today’s world.