Monthly Archives: October 2015

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.