Research Assignment: The Meeting of the "Modern" and "Unmodern"

Source 1: n.a. Christopher Columbus - Voyages to the New World. (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from <http://www.infoplease.com/encyclopedia/people/columbus-christopher-voyages-to-new-world.html>

This particular source outlines the four expeditions to the New World Christopher Columbus embarked on. The author’s list the four ships that accompanied Columbus into the New World and explain each expedition in detail. They provide a chronicle of the location, date and time, and summary of the events that occurred once Columbus landed in the New World. The website also includes a historical perspective of Columbus’ voyages. It situates his journey in the landscape of what was occurring at the time, i.e. Columbus was not the first person to travel to the Americas but his expeditions mark the European’s continuous attempts to navigate and colonize the Americas. They also include the ongoing discussion of Columbus’ legacy — whether or not he should be lauded as a hero or a villain in contemporary retellings of his life. This source is crucial to my group’s presentation because it gives us the starting point of Christopher Columbus; from all of these excerpts about his journeys, his successes and failures, and historical perspectives we can begin to piece together a presentation about the meeting of the two worlds. We can seek out the nuances in the story rather than brute overgeneralizations.

Source 2: Todorov, T. (1999) The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other. New York, New York: Harper & Row.

The second source I used was Tzvetan Todorov’s “The Conquest of America: The Question of the Other.” Todorov, a French-Bulgarian philosopher and author writes that Christopher Columbus’ actions marks a profound moment in the creating of identity of the European self. Although his analysis has its flaws, it’s a good place to situate the context of Columbus in our presentation. Todorov stamps the European self as the founder of modernity while the starting point of modernity began on an isolated island in the Caribbean; we acknowledge this idea is problematic as it’s centered around European perspectives however… he does offer our presentation a different rhetoric rather than the constricting colonial subject and colonial power discourse. Todorov points out the uselessness in such a narrative as it destroys the nuances in history which are critical to understanding it; he claims that the “discovery” of America was an attempt by Europeans to destroy the “other” —  a means for Europeans to identify themselves as modern and natural while the Americas were unmodern and unnatural. This analysis gives us a much more complex understanding of history which aids us as we address the many issues in Todorov’s philosophy and Columbus’ actions and voyages.

Week 10: The Four Archetypes in Evita

In high school psychology class, i’m not sure if this is accurate since it was a while ago... but I learned about the four archetypes that people place women and femininity into. And it kind of weirded me out that the public (including the elites and peasants) put Evita into the same four archetypes. Firstly, she was the power-hungry manipulative woman; there were rumors of Evita sleeping her way to the top and that she was only with Peron for his money and status, etc. Secondly, Evita was the the femme fatale — she “used” sex as a tool, her sexual presence enveloped rooms completely unrestrained and uncontrolled. Thirdly, Evita was the mother — she was incredibly self-sacrificing, devoted her life and love to the people of Argentina… like a mother. And finally, Evita was the Virgin Mary after she died — she was pure, true, devoted to the people, loyal to only one man in her life and virginal. She also encompassed a religious icon feature, Evita was heralded and worshipped just as much as the actual Virgin Mary was. Isn’t it so crazy to see these projections put on her so she could fit into all the realms of the public sphere? I’m not saying she wasn’t part of contributing to this persona, and it probably immensely influenced the way she connected to people by playing up these archetypes, but seeing these archetypes play themselves out on the ground was surreal.

Also when I read the documents with Evita's speech, I felt really sorrowful for her. It was clear that she was suffering from cancer and she was weak and just wanted to rest. She couldn’t fulfill her duties as a public servant and even then I don’t think she even wanted to do it anymore; she just wanted to die in peace but the public bullied it out of her. I mean the woman literally told them she had always done what they wanted, and still they continued to speak over her, demand things that she couldn’t give and refuse to accept her answers.

Side note, I feel like I'm being picky, but I couldn't help but notice Evita always used the word "Fatherland" referring to Argentina; and most people, contemporarily and in the past always equated their country with a female pronoun (the Motherland). So it was interesting to me to see her use a patriarchal term after learning in class she was a huge anti-feminist. I wonder if her anti-feminist stance had anything to do with using the term, what do you think?

Week 9: Is the United States an Anti-Imperialist Nation?

For the past few weeks I've spent a lot of time trying to decide if critiquing modernity was useful and even more than that, justified. The way Dawson's framed development in the last few chapters is that it more often than not detrimentally affects Latin America; even now in this chapter as Dawson discusses Belmont cigarettes, he talks about it as a harmful instrument used by the North to get Latin Americans to consume their products. Furthermore, from what I've seen modernity continues to reproduce harmful hierarchies about who is modern and who is not, who is rich and who is not. It frames people as traditional or westernized which is annoying to say the least. The idea of modernity is that if you're not assimilated into what the West thinks as developed, you're an uneducated savage.

However... I can understand the argument, there are certain medicines, ideologies, technologies, etc. that i believe are modern and everyone deserves to have, but then again that's a perspective from someone who has been raised in the West and thinks like a Western person. My critique then, is if modernity is so great and development is the natural point of which all civilizations grow towards why does it always seem like one person is always suffering at the hands of modernity? And is it not a form of cultural imperialism for a country to impose it's ideas on another?

I also don't agree with the way Dawson frames the United States as an anti-imperialist nation because the U.S. doesn't directly colonize nations. He virtuously ignores the violent colonization of Hawaii, the Philippines and Puerto Rico. But even if I disregard that, imperialism is the direct involvement of another country trying to extend it's powers upon a different nation — America's interventions in Latin American affairs could not be a clearer portrayal of imperialism. Dawson writes that framing the United States as a violent oppressor or noble saviour serves a political interest but does little to reveal nuanced truths. I sort of agree...? But he really doesn't even have a good argument for this. Like yeah okay both are consuming each other, but you can't deny that one is gaining way more than the other. It's like when Columbus traded broken plates for gold with the indigenous population... sure they're both getting something, but it's not equal by any means and to try to claim it like it is, is nothing short of egregious.

Week 8: Did Zapata Look Uncomfortable to You?

For this week's reading I actually found the text to be a lot more intriguing than the articles, I think it situated the theme of this class in a context I could better understand. One of the more memorable lines Dawson writes in the chapter was that “Latin Americans lived in a fragmentary world, one person's boom was another person's crisis.” A lot of our in class discussions always revolve around arguing if the ends justify the means, if one person’s boom is worth another person’s crisis, if we can overlook the brutality of tyrants by measuring their overall progress (President Diaz comes to mind when I write this). I disagree with any ends justify the means discourse, so I say no, but I’m curious to what you think. Do you disagree or agree?

One of the really interesting things from the text i read was Dawson's take on the photographs of the Zapistas eating at Sanborns, and Villa and Zapata in Mexico City. If you look in the Sanborns one, there's a man dressed in a three piece tuxedo suit staring directly at the back of the soldiers and he looks soooo uncomfortable — it’s really something else. In the beginning, I did disagree with Dawson’s proposed theory that the Zapistas and Zapata look uncomfortable to be there but the more I thought about it, it does make sense. I’ve met real country people and they’ve always seemed uncomfortable to be in the city, it’s not their home. They don’t really relate to what city folk think about or the customs or their fashion. Although it seems like a large presumption to make about a photo taken from over a century ago, I think it’s a rational one. The rural and peasant class never went to the city, and I know they were gawked at, stared at, probably even had expletives yelled at them while they seized Mexico city. So yes, I think Zapata and the Zapistas may have been uncomfortable there. And Dawson draws up a good theory that the way the peasantry occupied the city (through force, terror and violence) served as a reminder they did not belong there. If you belong to something you shouldn’t have to force yourself on it. They’re people who have been on the margins looking in, and once they’re finally in they realize they still aren’t in it. But i'm not sure, did Zapata look uncomfortable to you?

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?