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.