Week 7: Do the Ends Justify the Means?

I usually enjoy the documents over the actual chapter textbook because they tend to be less dense and more fascinating in my opinion, and this week wasn't any different.

I found the Diaz reading really interesting, especially with having the privilege of knowing what actually occurs in history. When I read it, Diaz seemed like such a charismatic, great, hero of Mexico and of modernity. If I didn’t know better, I would think he truly was a selfless leader, one who only wanted the best for his people and his nation… But I do know better. I know that he wasn’t true to his word, and tried to run for another term, basically crowning himself the dictator of Mexico once more and spurring on the Mexican Revolution. It made me really curious, I wonder what occurred that made someone who seemed so intent on the progression of Mexico disregard it entirely? It was also a little off-putting to see Diaz and the journalist talk about the murders Diaz and his army perpetrated so callously... in the name of democracy, liberty, and country. This brought me to my question, do you think that the ends justifies the means as Diaz says? Are the atrocities and the countless people he killed forgivable in the name of pushing forth order and progress?

The photography section reminded me a lot of South African photography during apartheid, when photography played a huge role in the ending of segregation. Photography allowed outsiders a gaze into the true ugly realm of apartheid and it was a pivotal part of independence. It seemed to me that Latin American photography was a means of creating a tangible identity for Latin America -- one more rooted in modernity, democracy, or showcasing the beauty of indigenous cultures. As much as they were used to display difference, for me they were also amazing at showing the true diversity of people.

What I was curious about though was who was the audience for these photos? Dawson mentions that often photographers would set up studios and he doesn't mention if these photos are large enough to be hung in studios or dispersed to individuals. Who would see the photos of the indigenous men, or the Peruvian soldier and his wife? Honestly what purpose would they serve? I get the argument of showing racial distinctions and categories but who would have the time to walk around town showing people photos of indigenous communities… It seems bizarre.

Week 6: Latin American Feminism

I mainly found the Echnique and Sagasta articles interesting because I love reading feminist discourses by women of colour before the first wave in the 1920's. They're definitely far left and right discourses and they're both flawed and brilliant in their own way. To me, both of their perspectives were reductive but I could also really understand their logic.

I heard some people claim that Sagasta was arguing for the right of women to be mothers and not be vilified for it but I don't think that's a fair claim. She's arguing that women's only place in the world is as a mother and a wife. She's telling us emancipation is wrong because we'll lose our purposes in life (serving men). Sagasta views women as inferior to men physically and emotionally -- our bodies just can't take the same amount of trauma men can. Even so, she thinks our spiritual connections to the world are invaluable; we are beautiful the way we are and we shouldn't seek to emancipate ourselves. Our thrones, as queens, rest in the household -- which is by far one of my favourite sentences in her article. We are beautiful, radiant, royalty, the backbones of families, the essence of purity, but still second to men.

And Echnique's article is pretty much summed up to making women feel guilty for having comfort in things like art, literature or poetry. She claims that these focuses are useless and are one of our main oppressors. She tells us to reject these values and seek knowledge in "practical philosophy" which is basically critical self-reflection... but, contrary to her belief, most if not all of art, poetry and literature are forms of self-reflection. Even with that harsh critique that as women we're too focused on sentiments, she praises us! She wants us to be emancipated, fulfill our dreams because we are as equal to men.. and perhaps even better.

It was really amusing to see them love women, women's powers, and bodies, but still reduce them down to how 1) they are helpful to men or 2) how they are not useful to men or even relevant.
But I'd like to know what you think, do you disagree or agree with me? Am I not critiquing them enough or vice versa?

.

Week 5: Caudillos vs. The Nation State

My initial thoughts on this week's reading is a little bit scattered but I'll try my best to arrange them in an order that makes sense. 

I find Bolivar almost a little irritating in a lot of contexts, now knowing his history and background as Creole elite. He spoke with so much optimism about uniting Latin America against the great threat that was the United States, but at his core he was purely an elite fighting for the elites, which is why central authority broke down in post-independence Latin America. You have a group of people who have always been at the top or close to the top of the hierarchy even in a colonial context, now fighting for the top, and you have others who have been completely subjugated and marginalized also fighting to be at the top. Of course there's going to be a war. Each faction believes they deserve a piece of the pie. Bolivar had a romanticised idea of Latin America, which would be ruled by what he called the "intellectuals or educationists" essentially people who he thought deserved to rule Latin America. The "oppressed" elite class, became the biggest oppressors after independence which is why the caudillos rose into power — by influence of the large peasantry class who believed they were being represented.

I understand that often times caudillos ruled with brute force and subjected the peasantry class to abuse but what were the other options? After independence in Latin America almost all the individual countries were thrown into a state of turmoil. The caudillos offered not only stability but central authority. They also represented the ideals of the peasantry even though they weren't necessarily part of the peasantry class, they understood the necessity of having the populace believe in them. The disenfranchised peasants needed representation regardless of how much they had to give up to the caudillos; so it's hard for me to see the caudillos in a black and white type of manner now knowing the nuances and complexities of it. It's also understandable that caudillos fought back against liberalist policies because the "enlightened" scholars attacked a lot of core values held by religious traditionalists with no sense of compromise and vice versa. It's all very complex and hard to wrap my mind around, but I have questions I'm hoping you can answer:

1) If the caudillos did not gain power, who would've represented the peasantry? What other options were there? Would the peasant class do so on their own and seize power?

2) I don't think there's even been a unified Latin America because it's such a large territory and housed within the territory are individual countries, furthermore there are a lot of distinctions and division between peoples, so would there have ever been a unified Latin America like Bolivar talks about?

3) If the caudillos had not represented the peasantry class, what would have probably occurred? A civil war between the elites and peasants? Or would the peasants have remained oppressed?

Week 4: Champions of Latin America?

So when I first read Simon Bolivar's letter to Jamaica, I was a little thrown by the language. It seemed especially calm compared to other revolutionary letters I've read. Most of the time, the letters are filled with passion and excitement, always overly zealous and overwhelming to the audience; but Bolivar's letter seemed much... less? It's hard to articulate but it appeared as if he was being fake humble since Bolivar was asking for money from Jamaica to fund his revolution. He threw himself at the feet of the British which is ironic because the British were exactly like the Spanish — they were both colonial ruling forces. I also really found it enlightening that Bolivar redefined the word slavery for his agenda. I have (and maybe you as well) tendencies to romanticize the past and imagine a pure Latin American revolution not contaminated by corruption, greed, etc. but that's just not true. The elite class were not seeking independence to free the chains of the people, they wanted to find more efficient ways to marginalize and disenfranchise the lower class.

Moreover, what I found the most interesting was Hugo Chavez's speech in 2003. When I first read the entire speech I was enthralled at how passionate he was.... even on paper, I could imagine every word he was saying, I could imagine all the leaders listening to him in rapt attention. I initially really liked him; I liked the message he was portraying, the criticisms of the West's efforts to subjugate Latin America and the anti-imperialist, anti-globalization, anti-neoliberalism sentiments. He was a man of the people, and as a part of the people, how could I not like him? However I learned about the truth of Chavez from my colleagues. How his championing and self-proclamation as a Bolivarian protoge was untrue. Chavez destroyed Venezuela's economy and left the nation in ruins. He made off with over 4.2 billion dollars which is now a dynastic wealth passed down to his daughter. He ruled as a dictator, silencing opposition by jailing them or having them murdered. I again, had to come to terms of me idealizing Latin America, purposely ignoring the complexities and conflicts to match my own agenda (much like Bolivar).

These readings and discussions were really enlightening. I'm trying not to judge history too harshly but it's proving difficult; it seems that Latin America simply exchanged an oppressor for another.

So my questions are:
1) Do you idealize the past? If you do, why do you think it happens?
2) How do we work on not appropriating the past to push forward certain ideals? How can we critically think of the past to keep from losing the complexities of the situation?
3) Does knowing the intentions and motivations of Bolivar and the Creole class for wanting independence lessen the importance of independence? Does it take away from independence at all, or should it still be heralded?
4) Is Chavez truly a man of the people, or am I judging him too harshly? Am I ignoring the complexities of the situation and nuances once again? If I am, why? If I am not, why?
5) Are any independences or revolutions free of ulterior motives? Can you name any that have been pure in execution and form?
6) How do some of the richest economic countries, like Venezuela or Haiti end up suffering so much in contemporary times? What are they doing wrong? Why is this happening to them?