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.