Please use categories or tags when writing your blog posts. Use categories to indicate the week (Week 3 or Week 10 etc.), and tags for key concepts or topics covered.
Dawson, Chapter 1
Posted by: feedwordpress
I believe that anyone that has lived or visited Latin American could identify with the example used at the begging of the chapter regarding Ecatepec and Polanco. It’s an issue that’s present in almost any big metropolis in Latin America, and it’s a perfect way to introduce to topic that even though someone can identify themselves as […] read full post >>
Dawson, Chapter 1
Posted by: feedwordpress
I believe that anyone that has lived or visited Latin American could identify with the example used at the begging of the chapter regarding Ecatepec and Polanco. It’s an issue that’s present in almost any big metropolis in Latin America, and it’s a perfect way to introduce to topic that even though someone can identify themselves as […] read full post >>
Week 4: On Dawson’s Introduction & Chapter 1
Posted by: feedwordpress
ON INTRODUCTION In the introduction, Dawson is justifying his approach to Latin American histories he adopted in this book by pointing out several problems in historical studies. Through these insightful discussions one can understand why a collection of fragmentary stories is probably the best way for readers to understand Latin America. In short, the aim is to avoid […] read full post >>
Liberals and Liberation: Week 4 Reading
Posted by: feedwordpress
In the opening statements of his book, Dawson discusses the public perception of America's unity during and after the Revolutionary War and then asserts that Latin America is too diverse for such a monolithic interpretation of its revolutionary period. One enduring modern bias of the Latin American postcolonial nations is their bias against the legacy of the Spanish and their system of privileges that placed European aristocrats above the rest of society. This system had many obvious faults (slavery, gender repression, racial discrimination), but within that system there were, in theory, provisions to allow certain indigenous tribes to continue to hold communal land, a privilege under threat from the land privatization campaign that the urban criollo population was in favour of. Similarly, the enslaved Africans were not always in favour of an overthrow of the Spanish monarchy unless there was the promise of being freed by the revolution. While these smaller sectional agendas are important elements of the region's revolutionary spirit, but the liberal democratic revolutions of Simon Bolivar came to define the character of the entire liberation of Latin America. The other liberal regimes of the emerging global economic order in the 19th century supported the liberal revolutionaries if for no other reason than to remove Spain's imperial trade restrictions and afterwards helped cement the new nations' sovereignty with increased commerce.
The disunity associated with Latin American states is a result of historical pressures rather than any reflection on the character or quality of their political spirit. The battle to overcome direct Spanish imperial dominance would not nearly be so hard as the battle to become unentangled from the new colonialism of liberal free trade. How can true independence exist for a modern Latin nation with the United States as a predatory power looming above them? This policy of menacing neighbouring Western Hemispheric nations began with wars of territorial acquisition in Mexico, the Caribbean and Colombia and continues with the modern system of regime change to prohibit nationalization of resources that are harvested by American business interests. In my opinion, this current system of extortion is only possible through the existence of a liberal, dictatorial status quo that were the legacies of the first wave of liberatory struggles. While Simon Bolivar deserves credit and adoration for his defeat of the Spanish Empire, his legacy of economic liberalization and dictatorial republicanism established a paradigm that the revolutionaries of future generations would die opposing. read full post >>
The disunity associated with Latin American states is a result of historical pressures rather than any reflection on the character or quality of their political spirit. The battle to overcome direct Spanish imperial dominance would not nearly be so hard as the battle to become unentangled from the new colonialism of liberal free trade. How can true independence exist for a modern Latin nation with the United States as a predatory power looming above them? This policy of menacing neighbouring Western Hemispheric nations began with wars of territorial acquisition in Mexico, the Caribbean and Colombia and continues with the modern system of regime change to prohibit nationalization of resources that are harvested by American business interests. In my opinion, this current system of extortion is only possible through the existence of a liberal, dictatorial status quo that were the legacies of the first wave of liberatory struggles. While Simon Bolivar deserves credit and adoration for his defeat of the Spanish Empire, his legacy of economic liberalization and dictatorial republicanism established a paradigm that the revolutionaries of future generations would die opposing. read full post >>
Chapter 1 Reading
Posted by: feedwordpress
I found it interesting that in the introduction that the textbook is not just about a particular Latin American past, but stories which are considered to be crucially important, and these stories are linked in a way which can be decided by the reader. I found this interesting because Latin America is such a large and diverse place, it is difficult to be able to fit so much history into a single textbook. It was a thought provoing point made when t was mentioned that the united states is often a common enemy of many of the people in Latin America, as it they feel the united states has been fueled by the struggles of latin amercia. contradictory, the United States is an immensely popular destination for immigrants hoping to achieve a better life for themselves as well as their families and generations to come.
In Chapter 1, It mentioned that there was no significant event where there was suddenly independence for Latin America, as it makes it o look as if this had happened in North America.Especially since Latin America is such a large, diverse place, it is difficult to pinpoint one certain event at which independence was granted. Haiti was the first republic to ban slavery, and they also gained independence, which had a strong influence on other places. When the war broke out, the slaves ay have acted in different ways, but always with freedom as their desired outcome. In Brazil however, the saves were understood as being depended on for the economic well being of the country, and even after Brazil did gain independence, slavery was saved.
read full post >>Chapter 1 Reading
Posted by: feedwordpress
I found it interesting that in the introduction that the textbook is not just about a particular Latin American past, but stories which are considered to be crucially important, and these stories are linked in a way which can be decided by the reader. ... read full post >>
Week 4: On Dawson’s Introduction & Chapter 1
Posted by: feedwordpress
ON INTRODUCTION In the introduction, Dawson is justifying his approach to Latin American histories he adopted in this book by pointing out several problems in historical studies. Through these insightful discussions one can understand why a collection of fragmentary stories is probably the best way for readers to understand Latin America. In short, the aim is to avoid […] read full post >>
Chapter One: Independence narratives
Posted by: feedwordpress
well i found the story of Latin American independence and struggle for it to be interesting for me. I especially love the commentaries by Simon Bolivar & Jose Martí to be especially of great interest to me. They both don’t like the influence of America but at the same time find themselves in need of […] read full post >>
Fragmentary Consciousness
Posted by: feedwordpress
In chapter one, Alexander Dawson makes a note that much of Latin American history is constructed by narratives in order to create a unifier among a vast variety of histories and regions. This single identity he speaks of is used today to gain popularity to rise to presidency, in creating alliances between nations, and to join forces against imperial powers. I liked how he mentioned that there are two types of narratives. The broad, overreaching narrative that spans across large chunks of time and space and refers to concepts such as capitalism and colonialism. The other type is particular narratives. These narratives isolate a single point in time and look at its particularities. Both types of narratives are problematic. The former generalizes and decontextualizes. The latter makes history seem rigid and precise, instead of fluid and changing before, during, and after the range of dates chosen. Dawson refers to these split visions as fragmentary history. He explains that his goal for the textbook is give multiple narratives instead of a single one. I think that it is very important to look at history in this light. There is no one side to a person, no one side to a place, and no one side to a country or a point of time. The first example he uses is that of the neighborhood Polanco and its neighbor Ecatepec in Mexico City. Polanco is a wealthy neighborhood, in contrast Ecatepec which is a poor slum. Both live next to each other, two different realities in the same geographic region, both considered Latin American, and both of them claim the same historic heroes. Their consciousness of this situation is actively being suppressed and summoned when convenient resulting in a fragmentary consciousness. I'm wondering how fragmentary history plays a part in this split consciousness and how it effects the individual's psyche.
In my experience, the fragmentary history results in conscious and unconscious blindness. My uncle in Córdoba, Argentina lives in a "country" (gated community). Right beside this community is a villa miseria (slum). The two polar opposite worlds living right beside each other. Each one ignoring the other for decades. However, over the past few years, I've noticed tensions have risen due to resentment and economic depression. The two sides are willingly bringing the presence of each other at the front of their consciousness. The violence has risen and so has the conversation. During my visit this summer, I learned that in the 1600s there was a large population of blacks in the city. Many of the buildings that still stand today were built by blacks and indigenous peoples. Today both populations have been utterly displaced from the city. While speaking with my relatives I learned that no one knew about this! However, the most ubiquitous term used to refer to the poor, uneducated people of the city is "negro" (black). This piece of history had been completely erased from the consciousness of the people and the history of the city. Yet, it is still unconsciously present today in the language used. I believe that this duality might be a result of the fragmentary history Dawson speaks of. Thoughts?
read full post >>Fragmentary Consciousness
Posted by: feedwordpress
In chapter one, Alexander Dawson makes a note that much of Latin American history is constructed by narratives in order to create a unifier among a vast variety of histories and regions. This single identity he speaks of is used today to gain popularity to rise to presidency, in creating alliances between nations, and to join forces against imperial powers. I liked how he mentioned that there are two types of narratives. The broad, overreaching narrative that spans across large chunks of time and space and refers to concepts such as capitalism and colonialism. The other type is particular narratives. These narratives isolate a single point in time and look at its particularities. Both types of narratives are problematic. The former generalizes and decontextualizes. The latter makes history seem rigid and precise, instead of fluid and changing before, during, and after the range of dates chosen. Dawson refers to these split visions as fragmentary history. He explains that his goal for the textbook is give multiple narratives instead of a single one. I think that it is very important to look at history in this light. There is no one side to a person, no one side to a place, and no one side to a country or a point of time. The first example he uses is that of the neighborhood Polanco and its neighbor Ecatepec in Mexico City. Polanco is a wealthy neighborhood, in contrast Ecatepec which is a poor slum. Both live next to each other, two different realities in the same geographic region, both considered Latin American, and both of them claim the same historic heroes. Their consciousness of this situation is actively being suppressed and summoned when convenient resulting in a fragmentary consciousness. I'm wondering how fragmentary history plays a part in this split consciousness and how it effects the individual's psyche.
In my experience, the fragmentary history results in conscious and unconscious blindness. My uncle in Córdoba, Argentina lives in a "country" (gated community). Right beside this community is a villa miseria (slum). The two polar opposite worlds living right beside each other. Each one ignoring the other for decades. However, over the past few years, I've noticed tensions have risen due to resentment and economic depression. The two sides are willingly bringing the presence of each other at the front of their consciousness. The violence has risen and so has the conversation. During my visit this summer, I learned that in the 1600s there was a large population of blacks in the city. Many of the buildings that still stand today were built by blacks and indigenous peoples. Today both populations have been utterly displaced from the city. While speaking with my relatives I learned that no one knew about this! However, the most ubiquitous term used to refer to the poor, uneducated people of the city is "negro" (black). This piece of history had been completely erased from the consciousness of the people and the history of the city. Yet, it is still unconsciously present today in the language used. I believe that this duality might be a result of the fragmentary history Dawson speaks of. Thoughts?
read full post >>