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)

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.

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.

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!