Week 13 Response

Leave a reply

This final reading left me with both positive and negative feelings about the future of Latin America. It is great to see that in recent years real political change has occurred in much of the region, and that now issues like poverty are really being addressed. Also, many countries’ economies in general have greatly improved, and I hope that this is sustainable. The region as a whole has come a long way in the past few decades, and hopefully this trend will only continue. I also hope that as part of this upward trend Latin America may find more social stability, as despite all of the improvements in the region this still remains an issue. One thing that I was very happy to read about was the lessening influence of the United States on affairs in Latin America, and it is great to see that countries are becoming more independent and have been able to shake off much of the control of the US.

Of course, one thing that is definitely not looking too bright is the environmental state of Latin America; although this, too, seems to be improving. Resource extraction has had large and grave impacts on the region, and now increasingly more and more people are calling for an end to these practices. A huge part of that movement is the indigenous population of Latin America, who has found much more of a voice in recent years (by this I mean they are actually being listened to), and they have been able to shake up the status quo and really challenge some of these large companies, as well as the states themselves. Hopefully this, too, continues, for everyone’s sake, really.

I have thoroughly enjoyed learning about Latin America through this course, and it has opened my eyes to a lot of new information, history, and cultures.

Video Project Research Assignment

Leave a reply

Source: “The Cult of the Caudillo”

This is an article published in the Wall Street Journal in 2009, written by David Luhnow, Jose de Cordoba, and Nicholas Casey. It talks about the ousting of Honduran president Manuel Zelaya in 2009 by his own government and military, and how this was a sign of the ongoing worry over “caudillos” in Latin America. Zelaya, like many of his contemporaries, was looking to change the constitution so that there would be no limit on how many terms he could be president. To quote the article, “When democracy took root in Latin America in the 1980s and ’90s, nearly every country opted to bar re-election as a way to ensure caudillos would never return… [with Mr. Zelaya] Honduran power brokers decided not to take any chances. In booting him out at gunpoint, they showed what little faith they had in the country’s institutions to check Mr. Zelaya’s ambitions.” The article gets into more details about the situation, and also discusses other “caudillos” in Latin America, such as Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales: “Both men used populism and disappointment with existing political parties to cast themselves as their nation’s saviors.” This was an interesting read, and gave a modern perspective on Caudillos, who today may not fit the traditional mold but certainly seem to still be around in some capacity.

 

Source: “Could Latinos actually warm up to a caudillo candidate like Donald Trump?”

This is an opinion piece, written by Peter Weber, published in “The Week” on August 21st of this year. The question the article is asking seems quite ridiculous, given Trump’s stance on immigration, among other things. Even the article itself acknowledges this towards the end: “Every caudillo is different, just as every country has its own political and social culture. But will U.S. Latinos somehow respond to the caudillismo of Donald Trump, even if they have lived in the United States since birth, or their families have been here for generations? The question seems absurd, even insulting.” I agree. But where the article does get interesting is with the next point it brings up: “‘What’s surprising about Trump is that he has attracted such a wide following,’ Ignatius writes in The Washington Post. ‘Americans have had flirtations with demagogues…. But the bullying authoritarian personality — the Putin style — usually doesn’t work here.’ In the end, if they get the chance, Latinos probably won’t vote for Trump in any great numbers in 2016. But if Trump does somehow make it to the general election, is the rest of America ready for its first caudillo president?” Thinking of Donald Trump in terms of a “caudillo” may be deeply flawed in many ways, but it is something interesting to consider. To quote the article, “He’s rough and he doesn’t care about fine things like legal rights, but that very roughness means he can get things done.” I don’t know how useful this will be for our video, but at the very least it is perhaps something interesting to think about. (just for the record, I will most definitely not be voting for Donald Trump)

 

 

Week 11 Response

3 Replies

The reading this week focused on a particularly bloody and divided time in Latin American history, between the 1960s and 1980s, where guerrilla warfare reined. Newly formed socialist groups fought against their states, with civilians, and rural peoples in particular, becoming the main targets of the violence. Both the governments and the revolutionaries were responsible for a huge amount of deaths, as well as just overall chaos.

It was sad to learn about the large role that Cold War politics had to play in this era, with both the United States and the Soviet Union funding and aiding their respective sides. The socialist guerrilla armies could count on the support of Moscow, while their enemies, governments who most of which had turned authoritarian, could rely on the helping hand of Washington. There were a lot of factors surrounding the breakout of this horrific time in Latin America, as is summed up well in the textbook: “The unrest they faced could be attributed to both local and global patterns – dimming economic prospects combined with youth culture, idealism unleashed by the Cuban revolution, and cold war politics.” It truly was a dangerous mix.

I found this week’s reading to be particularly sad and troubling, for a couple of reasons. First off, just the amount of death and suffering that was experienced by Latin Americans, and particularly civilians who wanted nothing to do with any of it and were simply left wondering when the nightmare would be over. Next, these events happened so recently, only 30 or so years ago, and so close to home, with our neighbors in Latin America. As we are seeing today with groups like ISIS, and the terrible violence that is occurring in places like Syria, people are far from evolving past the point of events like these, and we can only hope that one day the world will be a place where everyone can at least live in safety.

Week 10 Response

Leave a reply

The reading this week was focused around the emergence of new technologies like the radio and how these new mediums helped to dramatically transform the political and cultural scene in Latin America. I found it very interesting to see the heavy influence that the radio had in Latin America. I obviously knew that the radio marked a large shift in the way the world functioned, but I hadn’t necessarily thought of its impact in this particular sense.

The whole topic on the “crowd” I found to be particularly interesting. The invention of the microphone allowed for large gatherings of people at political rallies and speeches and such, when before the size of the crowd was severely limited due to the simple fact that a person’s voice will only carry so far. The radio then allowed one’s voice to travel thousands of miles, and the way that this could unite people and make them feel like they’re part of something larger I found to be very cool. Nowadays, we have the ability to communicate and view information from across the world at any time, and so we end up taking it for granted; but with the radio this was all still very new and I just think the wonderment of it must have been truly special. I also found it cool how the radio helped to form popular culture by playing certain songs and programs that everybody would then know.

With this new medium came a lot of potential for political influence, a fact that definitely did not get past the politicians. While many of them failed at properly utilizing the radio, this was not the case with Juan Domingo Peron, and his wife, Evita. The way that they were able to capture the hearts and minds of so many Argentinians, particularly the working class, I found to be quite extraordinary. Evita was not quite a politician, but also not quite a regular person, and this medium that she found as this sort of bridge in between, and the way that people loved her, was unique and impressive. The whole story of the Perons just seemed very unorthodox, and it was definitely an interesting read.

Week 9 Response

1 Reply

This week focused on the ways in which the United States has looked to (and continues to look to) enforce control over Latin America. Although I’ve already studied this topic, I still really enjoyed the reading this week; and learned a lot of new information that I hadn’t known before. Also, being from the US, I found particular interest in this topic; as I think that it is important to know the ways in which your country has wronged and continues to wrong other nations and peoples; so that first off you may try and free yourself from ignorance, and then perhaps even change the way things are done.

The United States has gained influence in Latin America not only through the flexing of military power, but also through the spreading of American commercialism; American products and ideas. Focusing first on the military element, I found it very disturbing some of the ways that the US has intervened in Latin America. The United Fruit Company coming into countries like Guatemala and having basically single-handed control over the economy, transport, and power of the country is horrible, and the loss of national sovereignty seems very unstable. I found it very admirable how Arbenz continued to resist the threat of the US government, but it was almost inevitable that he could not succeed only through, as Dawson called it, “popular support”.

Where I thought the text got very interesting was when it began to focus on the more cultural ways that the United States gained influence over Latin America. This type of influence can be much more powerful and wide-spreading than military control, as you can get the actual support of the people you are controlling. Also, this influence spread past just Central America and the Caribbean, which were the only regions that the US was really able to exert any sort of military control over. I liked the focus on Disney, and how it perpetuates many stereotypes and supports ideas of imperialism. Disney has began to receive a lot more public heat in recent years, and this is a good thing, as as much as I love their cartoons there are some very important discussions to be had about them.

Just looking towards the future a bit, one place I see very plausibly being affected by the spread of American commercialism is Cuba, as US-Cuba relations have recently improved which may allow for the larger spread of American businesses and interests into the country. I sincerely hope that Starbucks does not end up popping up on every street corner!

Week 7 Response

Leave a reply

The reading this week focused on the transition to ‘modernity’ in Latin America during the 19th and early 20th Century. Export and foreign investment were the main catalysts of economic growth throughout Latin America, and this led to an uneven distribution of wealth, with only a few elites in each country seeing a large majority of the money. Also, the system that was set up between Latin American countries and the US and Western European countries, where Latin America would export raw materials in exchange for manufactured goods, only saw the gap to these rich nations grow (for the most part).

I thought the point that was brought up early on was an important one, that, “political stability is almost always stability in someone’s interest”. So as stability at the national level in these countries grew, this allowed for the government to come in and start controlling local affairs, grabbing up land and such to be used to boost the export economy. This, obviously, was viewed negatively by the people that were seeing their property and traditions taken away, but at the same time this allowed for the economic growth of the country as a whole. The Latin American elites believed that there needed to be “order” for “progress”, but also that the people were not ready for democracy, that their ways were too “backwards”, and so order must be forced upon them. All of this just shows that there is always at least two views to the same story.

An interesting subplot to all of this, I thought, was the role of women during this period, and how their place in Latin American society changed and evolved. Many women were relegated to the domestic sphere, but at the same time they were becoming increasingly literate, and so began agitating for increased women’s rights and freedoms, something that is inspiring to hear. Also, many women were actually employed, some as maids and laundresses, some as prostitutes, but some also as part of the industrial workforce. This was somewhat surprising to hear, as it seems quite progressive for the time. The whole thing about factory owners looking to protect the “virtue” of their female employees in the hopes of fending off unions I found to be pretty bizarre, and it was good to hear that many women, just like their male counterparts, still went on strike and such in the hopes of getting increased pay, work conditions, etc.

Finally, I found the interview between Creelman and Diaz to be just plain weird, and I wonder as to what Creelman’s motivations were. He makes constant flowery compliments of not only Diaz’s personality and convictions, but also of his physical appearance. He talks about Diaz as though he is almost a saint, as if he is the most successful and loved president of all time, something we all know he is far from.

Week 6 Response

Leave a reply

The reading this week was quite interesting. The formation of rights and rules of citizenship was complicated and difficult following the independence of Latin America, and again varied greatly between different republics. You had some greatly conflicting ideas coming together and clashing, with the emergence of both 19th century liberalism and 19th century “scientific racism”. Race and caste were the critical categories early on in the debates over citizenship, while the discussion of women’s rights was widely deferred until the 20th century.

I was interested by this idea of “scientific racism”. It came out of Europe and North America, and basically just said that whites were genetically superior to all other races, claiming to be the product of legitimate scientific work. This allowed for the continued domination of white, elite males over the rest of society, and paved the way for more “unofficial practices” of discrimination. It is sad to see science being used this way, though it is not very surprising to me, especially the fact that it came out of Europe and North America. One thing that I found to be almost heartbreaking was the heavy loss of land by indigenous peoples following independence. It seems that village autonomy was often the main thing that these people desired, and after helping these new liberal states to emerge and gain power, they simply broke up the villages and took their land.

I enjoyed learning about the ending of slavery in different republics across Latin America ,and seeing how much it differed. I also liked the multiple comparisons with the United States and its story of emancipation. The one thing that I think surprised me the most was how “unlike in the United States, in Brazil and Cuba slavery and race were never coterminous.” Slavery in the United States had everything to do with race (the “one drop” rule), and so it was interesting to learn how race was maybe less of a factor in other places.

I’m glad that the textbook ended up talking a bit more about women’s rights, and their battle for recognition as equal citizens. I really enjoyed reading Maria Eugenia Echenique’s piece, and thought that she had some really important things to say. It’s also cool that she wrote this in 1876, long before any real reforms started to happen, showing that people were fighting from early on. She talks about how women must start to look towards “philosophy” and not “poetry”, and that they need “less sensibility and more reflection!” The response to Echenique, by Judith, was almost shocking, in that it had all of these non-progressive ideas for women but came from another woman. From early on it’s obvious how she feels, saying that “the emancipation of women… is an unattainable feat in our humble opinion and, moreover, harmful if it were to be attained.” “[Women] would lose their greatest charms and the poetic prestige of their weakness.” She seems to be focused solely on not breaking up the traditional home structure and man/woman relationship, as she says that women should be educated and so on, but that “good women are… anything but emancipated, less free in independence and rights than men.” It is a useful tool for an oppressive government/society to actually convince those they are oppressing that the way things are is the best possible way, and that it’s how it should naturally be.

 

Week 5 Response

Leave a reply

I really enjoyed learning about the caudillos and everything that went along with and around them this week. First off, just getting some more detail on what the post-independence scene in Latin America looked like was good. I obviously knew that independence did not bring great stability or peace to the area, but to learn of all that it brought – the breaking up of political units, wars, civil wars, and even the violent suppression of indigenous and other peoples – kind of just put it all into perspective for me. Then, getting into the details of all of this, specifically caudillaje, I found to be very interesting.

Caudillaje is completely new to me and so it was pretty cool to learn about. The fact that this sort of system of clientalism existed and thrived on such a large scale so recently was kind of surprising to me. It sounds like it was a very harsh time to live, and so it was also kind of surprising to me when it was said that caudillos were actually pretty popular, and I wanted to know the reasons why. Caudillos did a good job of appealing to people’s emotions, and provided a sense of community for people, as well as protection. They allowed for rural folks to keep their traditional values and customs in place in the aftermath of the fall of the Spanish crown as well as the Catholic church; and they helped to stave off the emerging liberal elites who saw the peasants’ “communal lands and autonomy as the essence of backwardness” (quoted from the textbook). With the view that the liberal elites had on the peasants, and how they seemed to really look down on them, it is no surprise to me that change was resisted. I am a bit divided on what to think of the caudillos. Like with everything involving Latin America, it seems, they are complicated. While their actions brought a lot of violence and instability to the lives of many people, they also did provide good services for people who needed them. They ruled with an iron fist, but also fed people and protected what those people considered to be “traditions essential to their survival.” In terms of their impact on nations as a whole, this also seems to have been mixed. Like in the case of de Rosas, he actually started the process of uniting Argentina under Beunos Aires, and got their export economy going. While at the same time many caudillos seem to have lost considerable land for their countries through their actions. Also, when you look at the historical circumstances surrounding the emergence of caudillos, which I discussed a bit above, they actually reflect in a lot of ways the times they were living in, and simply took advantage. So, while I cannot support any authoritarian power, I can at the same time see that the situation is complicated and must be taken in context; and that there are many elements to it that might be seen differently by different people.

I also enjoyed the reading by Echevarria, The Slaugherhouse. I thought that for the most part his writing was pretty engaging, and the descriptions he used were very colorful. He also utilizes bitter sarcasm quite often, and his hate for Rosas and all Caudillos is clearly evident. I thought that he laid out his thinking quite clearly in this quote: “It is a matter of reducing man to a machine, whose driving force is not his own will but that of the church and the government.” He gets at the idea of the people blaming everything on the Unitarians, when really their troubles are the cause of the church and the state. As I said, his descriptions are very colorful, and this includes really ugly descriptions of the people hunting for food at the slaughterhouse. While many of their actions do sound pretty wild, just the way he describes them makes his disdain for the people obvious. It almost seems like he is trying to equate them to animals, as he is always describing them alongside dogs who are also fighting for food. Again he makes his feelings obvious with this quote: “It was all a simulacrum in miniature of the barbaric ways in which individual and social issues are resolved in our country.” A couple of questions I may have are why did he use such religious descriptions and references throughout the text, such as with the flood and the crucifixion? And does this really display some sort of contradictory feelings on his part, or is he just using language which is appropriate for describing the situation from the view of these people? Also, I was a bit curious by the death of the Unitarian at the end, who is described as dying from rage while being mobbed and tortured by the Federalists. What exactly does this obviously symbolic death represent?

Week 4 Response

2 Replies

This week had a lot of content to unpack, but all of it is very interesting. It really enforced the general idea of the story of Latin America being anything but straightforward, with a focus on its quest for independence.

First off, we just saw how different regions hold their own narratives of national independence, and how these can even differ within the same country. One thing that I think is really important, that was brought up in the textbook, is the fact that the independence narrative also differs from group to group. So women would’ve experienced something much different from Africans who would’ve experienced something much different from crillos, etc. These narratives can often get lost. Then to further complicate things, freedom also meant many different things to different people; whether it be freedom from slavery, the demand that the avarice of your social betters be constrained, or even just the right to worship how you please. And for some, it was even better just to keep the current social structures in place, such as slavery, as it benefited them. So, you can see how things get quite complicated…

I’d heard of Simon Bolivar before, but it was interesting to learn of the absolutely immense impact he’s had on Latin American independence. He really seemed to believe that Latin American independence was almost inevitable, and he uses the word “destined” quite often. His point on the people of Latin America being kept in “a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs” is very important, and he talks about how they are rarely allowed to be more than just low-level workers or something of the sort. But he, too, is a complex figure, as can be seen with this quote from the video: “the Bolivarian dream tends to gloss over internal fissures and elide the question of who has the most – and least – to gain”. Regardless, his vision continues to inspire and motivate many today towards a truly united Latin America.

I really liked the message that Jose Marti put out through his work, “Our America”. He, too, calls for Latin America to unite as one, and not to fight among each other, as this will only hurt Latin America itself. I like that he calls on creativity as the salvation for Latin America, instead of trying to give some sort of concrete plan to follow. His point on education is very insightful, and I agree with him that “to know the country and govern it in accordance with that knowledge is the only way of freeing it from tyranny.” His choice of style, and the immense use of metaphor and allegory, can, as a reader, both draw you in and intimidate you, as the message of the text was sometimes lost on me.

Hugo Chavez’s speech was quite an interesting read. He talks about “neo-liberal globalization”, and an economic world order that heavily privileges the North. He says that “globalization has not brought so-called interdependence, but an increase in dependency. Instead of wealth being globalized, it is poverty that is increasingly widespread.” Some of the figures he provides, regarding poverty and such in the South, were really shocking and troubling to me. He talks about the “media monopoly” that the North holds, and I think that this is a very important point, as in the modern world whoever controls the media controls the way the masses think. Finally, he calls for “concerted and firm action”, and at least proposes some great sounding potential policies and such.

 

Week 3 Response

2 Replies

This was another interesting week of information. The Casta Paintings are strange but fascinating. The amount of work that went into trying to detail each and every possible combination of races and mixes seems almost insane, and shows the deep motivations the Spanish must have held for making them. I like the quote, “It attempts to provide a place for everyone, and mark sharp dividing lines… but it is needed because those lines are, in practice, blurred.” This, I believe, shows how the Casta paintings were never going to succeed.

There were some numbers from the video that I found quite staggering. The indigenous population of the Americas by 1600 was only 1/5th of that which it was 100 years earlier, due mostly to newly-introduced European diseases. Also, by 1800, six times more Africans than Europeans had come to the Americas, showing the huge amount of slavery that was taking place.

The reading on the “Lieutenant Nun” was pretty cool, and it is truly an amazing story. Catalina de Erauso showed great daring, bravery, and willingness to follow her feelings/instincts in escaping her convent in Spain, and coming all the way to America to start a new life as a conquistador. She had many crazy stories to tell, both from America and back in Spain, before she left. These included living with her brother, him unknowing of her identity, before eventually killing him in a duel where she did not realize it was him whom she was fighting. She was a great fighter, and definitely not unwilling to use her sword. And later, once she revealed her true identity, she was met with a relatively good reception, which I found somewhat surprising.