Blogs

This week I would like to focus on issue of women's emancipation and the two texts by María Eugenia Echenique and Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta. I found these two pieces particularly interesting, since they got me thinking about the current state women's status in Latin America. During my stay in Argentina, I found the atmosphere around feminism and women's rights quite anxious. There were major demonstrations against the laws concerning abortion and femicidios, which continue to threaten the lives of women throughout Latin America. Women were considered as respectful figures, especially at home but simultaneously they are faced with the threats of the machismo culture and patriarchy. 

In her writing, María Eugenia Echenique argues that women should become less sensible, spiritual and soft and become more practical and rational in order to become liberated. She both criticizes affect but at the same time she recognizes its worth. On the other hand, Josefina Pelleza de Sagasta maintains that women shouldn't become emancipated by any means, since it would be harmful, both for themselves but also for men and their children. Her writing romanticizes women and their beauty, describing them as "loving", "guardian angels" and "delicate". She argues that if women were to become free, they would lose all of their beauty and love. 

I think this kind of juxtaposition of womanhood and femininity is quite prominent even today. Feminism many times celebrates powerful women who have adapted masculine features and positions, and considers "traditional" women as "weak", or doesn't even recognize their existence. On the other hand, many people still argue that feminists are "too aggressive" and that they lack the kind of empathy and kindness that women should have. I think it is quite interesting that practicality and sensibility, strength and weakness must be mutually exclusive when it comes to women.

Question: Do you think that the emancipation of women has served Latin American women well? Why? Why not? 

read full post >>

This week I would like to focus on issue of women's emancipation and the two texts by María Eugenia Echenique and Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta. I found these two pieces particularly interesting, since they got me thinking about the current state women's status in Latin America. During my stay in Argentina, I found the atmosphere around feminism and women's rights quite anxious. There were major demonstrations against the laws concerning abortion and femicidios, which continue to threaten the lives of women throughout Latin America. Women were considered as respectful figures, especially at home but simultaneously they are faced with the threats of the machismo culture and patriarchy. 

In her writing, María Eugenia Echenique argues that women should become less sensible, spiritual and soft and become more practical and rational in order to become liberated. She both criticizes affect but at the same time she recognizes its worth. On the other hand, Josefina Pelleza de Sagasta maintains that women shouldn't become emancipated by any means, since it would be harmful, both for themselves but also for men and their children. Her writing romanticizes women and their beauty, describing them as "loving", "guardian angels" and "delicate". She argues that if women were to become free, they would lose all of their beauty and love. 

I think this kind of juxtaposition of womanhood and femininity is quite prominent even today. Feminism many times celebrates powerful women who have adapted masculine features and positions, and considers "traditional" women as "weak", or doesn't even recognize their existence. On the other hand, many people still argue that feminists are "too aggressive" and that they lack the kind of empathy and kindness that women should have. I think it is quite interesting that practicality and sensibility, strength and weakness must be mutually exclusive when it comes to women.

Question: Do you think that the emancipation of women has served Latin American women well? Why? Why not? 

read full post >>

After this week’s lecture, I decided to take some time to reflect on the first question about how the history of slavery shape the Americas and also on feminism in the Americas at the time. For starters, we constantly see reminders of systemic racism not only in the modern day Americas, but all over theContinue reading "Week 6: Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics" read full post >>

This week’s lecture of “Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics” covers events and concepts that I was fairly familiar with beforehand. Some very important notes from topics that were covered overall include race as a social construct that is not easily deconstructed, and the lasting effects and results of slavery and emancipation to thisContinue reading "Week 6: Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics" read full post >>

The imposition of a hierarchy is essential to the colonial operation. It sets up a “perfect” to rule over the “imperfect”. How then does a previous colonial state move away from this embedded hierarchy? Slavery is a clear example of the colonial caste system in Latin America. It distinguishes a class of people as propertyContinue reading "Week 6: Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics" read full post >>

This weeks reading regarding the slaughterhouse was quite hard to read. Echeverría depiction of the scene, was very graphic and... read full post >>

As they say about the Cuba and in state of the nation: Cuba is still in a state of euphoria due to the revolution. I am paraphrasing and the phrase, presently, is only applicable to very few Cuban’s, if any. I see this euphoria as similar to the identity of South Americans. In my opinion, […] read full post >>

 

The two topics I wanted to cover regarding this weeks lecture are the advantages and attractions of liberalism, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, the attractions of caudillaje. The main attraction behind liberalism is how idealistic it is. Liberalism ideally, sounds peaceful, beneficial, and preaches about equality being its main focus. There's a big emphasis on the freedom of the individual from restrictive, harsh laws. While certain groups thrive under this ideology, others don't. For instance, equality and individuality are a vital part of liberalism, but can equality really be reached? Perhaps under the law, yes, but in practice, it's obviously not so easy. Even today, countries that are considered liberal still struggle with inequality amongst its citizens. Specifically, people of colour still struggle for their equality. Inequality includes a plethora of issues, ranging from police brutality, to microaggressions that we don't even realize we're partaking in. This leads me to my next topic of why people would be less attracted to liberalism and more attracted to caudillaje. My first discussion question for this topic is as follows: do you think liberalism is the best way to go about governing a society? If not, what do you see as a better fit?

The first reason people may be happy to engage with caudillaje, is because of wealth. People with lower socioeconomic status (SES) may feel that they're not actually taken care of when it comes to liberalism. This can come about when they experience inequalities at the hand of someone with a higher SES, and that person faces no punishment for their actions. Another perk of the caudillo system for someone with a lower SES, is the ability to take rival groups, and potentially make money from their feud. As mentioned in the lecture, people had the possibility of getting money if they were to show their support for a certain group. When struggling to make ends meet, an offer like that can prove to be greatly beneficial.  My discussion question for this topic is what other social group may have a problem with liberalism, and why?

read full post >>

 

The two topics I wanted to cover regarding this weeks lecture are the advantages and attractions of liberalism, and on the opposite end of the spectrum, the attractions of caudillaje. The main attraction behind liberalism is how idealistic it is. Liberalism ideally, sounds peaceful, beneficial, and preaches about equality being its main focus. There's a big emphasis on the freedom of the individual from restrictive, harsh laws. While certain groups thrive under this ideology, others don't. For instance, equality and individuality are a vital part of liberalism, but can equality really be reached? Perhaps under the law, yes, but in practice, it's obviously not so easy. Even today, countries that are considered liberal still struggle with inequality amongst its citizens. Specifically, people of colour still struggle for their equality. Inequality includes a plethora of issues, ranging from police brutality, to microaggressions that we don't even realize we're partaking in. This leads me to my next topic of why people would be less attracted to liberalism and more attracted to caudillaje. My first discussion question for this topic is as follows: do you think liberalism is the best way to go about governing a society? If not, what do you see as a better fit?

The first reason people may be happy to engage with caudillaje, is because of wealth. People with lower socioeconomic status (SES) may feel that they're not actually taken care of when it comes to liberalism. This can come about when they experience inequalities at the hand of someone with a higher SES, and that person faces no punishment for their actions. Another perk of the caudillo system for someone with a lower SES, is the ability to take rival groups, and potentially make money from their feud. As mentioned in the lecture, people had the possibility of getting money if they were to show their support for a certain group. When struggling to make ends meet, an offer like that can prove to be greatly beneficial.  My discussion question for this topic is what other social group may have a problem with liberalism, and why?

read full post >>

Last week we discussed how important political representation.  This reminded me of why it is so important to vote and use your voice to elect the representation you want. When you don’t vote you don’t have the opportunity to be represented when decisions are being made that will directly affect your way of living. Independence is […] read full post >>