Looking forward to class this week as I had a hard time placing these stories in the context of Pop Culture in Latin America.

Reading translated fiction always makes me wish I was fluent in the original language the text was written in. These stories in particular possess super animated, descriptive & imaginative language, and it’s interesting in English. I bet it’s even better in Spanish.

I was reading up on Asturias and he seems like a pretty interesting guy.  He is an artist who felt it was very important to represent indigenous Guatemala and is credited with having done this accurately and well. That’s pretty sweet.

The stories are very beautiful.

I didn’t get a chance to read the second reading yet. I will update this post when I do!

I really like this reading so far. It is intimidatingly long but haaaay, this is University after all!
I like how sensitive the author seems to be, for the most part, about respecting indigenous populations all over LA throughout the article. I also like the indepth look and detail about dance, spiritual and religious rituals in the beginning half of the chapter. I took Intro to Latin American Studies last semester and loved the course, but didn’t love how general every section was. So I’m happy to be able to see more clearly some detail.
It’s a cool article though, definitely relevant to the beginning of this course. It kind of shows the history of exactly how the entire notion of “popular culture” began in Latin America. It’s hard to imagine a world where “popular culture” exists with the absence of social media. Like “popular culture” in the 1800s without Instagram to confirm everything. Strange.
The first half of the chapter brought me back to last semester in school where we learned about “sycretism” – basically the mixing of two cultures, and in the case of Peru specifically, the mix of pre and post colonial traditions. And I guess in this context – out of that mix, comes new notions of pop culture.
Also something I have been thinking about, not only during this reading, but in all of them so far, I’m thinking back to our first class in LAST201 where Jon made us think real critically about what culture is and what it is not and how you can appropriately define it… And honestly it’s kind of difficult to read anything super neutrally now because all I can think is like… IS THE AUTHOR EVEN CONSIDERING HOW MANY DIFFERENT THINGS CULTURE CAN BE?
For example, in this chapter, page 64, the author is outlining what he is going to examine next, and he states: “Our frame of reference excludes Southern Mexico and Guatemala because they have the highest presence of native culture, instead we’ll focus where cultural boundaries are more fluid.”
Like that still leaves the rest of Mexico, which is HUGE. Stating that the cultural boundaries are more fluid for the rest of the region is pretty bold statement to make I think? And also there is definitely “native culture” that exists in the remaining part of Mexico, why is it’s presence more or less fluid??

Just wild! I’ll never be able to hear the word “culture” again without my head spinning.

Eva Peron says a lot of relatable things in very vague ways. It is clear that her message is directed at the oppressed and the working class, but she keeps it vague enough that everybody can relate to her words to some degree or another.
Throughout the long work of writing, she continues to empower the people of Argentina and condemn the elite. While reading her words, i was thinking about an article I read about how Trump is a populist- and yeah, actually you can find a lot of similarities between Eva and Trump’s words. Their style of vagueness and appealing to the people with nationalist ideas, very similar. Although a pretty fundamentally different message. It doesn’t really matter which message you’re pushing to be a populist I guess.
I feel like I can’t have a full opinion on Peronism, because I don’t clearly understand both sides. As it stands, I think that the message the Perons’ expressed, both Eva and Juan, were all messages I stand behind… Like workers rights, and equal rights for women.
I know there is a lot of controversy about “Peronism”- and I assume it’s probably because like with any politician, they have their downfalls. But I just think that having the Peron’s speak and act on worker’s rights and women’s rights and more was a good thing in the 1940s/50s.

As for the second reading – I definitely had a hard time grasping the overarching meaning within it. Don’t really have much to say about it, except that I’m looking forward to getting the in depth analysis in class lol!

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Hello! I’m Rachel.

I’m a first year student at UBC. I’m from Northern Ontario and moved to Vancouver about two years because WOW, Vancouver is so beautiful.

My interest in this course stems from always having loved the Spanish language, loving my Latin American friends and a big ol’ backpacking trip through Costa Rica and Nicaragua last year.

I spend my free time running, skiing, dancing, chillaxing, and occasionally doing homework.

Catch ya on Tuesdays and Thursdays!