Blogs

Week 8: Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age Research Paper

Source 1: Meyers, William K. “Pancho Villa and the Multinationals: U.S. Mining Interests in Villista Mexico, 1913-15” Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 339-336

Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/157028

The career of Pancho Villa began in during the two-pronged revolution to overthrow Porfirio Diaz, with him and his Norteñocavalry descending from the arid north and Emiliano Zapata coming up from the verdent south with an army of campesinos, both intending to storm Mexico City. With the ultimate failure of this revolution culminating in the 1913 assassination of the new president Francisco Madero, Pancho Villa again took to the field to rid his region of Mexican governments who would allow their country to be sold piecemeal to foreign business interests. But, despite this attitude being the bedrock of the Villista movement, strategic concessions had to be made during the course of the war to ensure the day-to-day operation of certain economic activities that required specially trained personnel like mining.

Pancho Villa’s revolutionary activity proceeded, necessarily by his region’s proximity to the border, only with tacit American support for his actions. The balance was particularly in favor of the Americans when it came to heavy industry, as Americans had built most of Mexico’s railways and operated almost all of their mineshafts. When Villa captured several significant American-run shafts and their respective towns, he found it difficult to keep the mines in operation without allowing the Americans to have some degree of control over the external affairs of the mine’s operation. This clearly contradicted the spirit of the revolution, but Villa had to make the choice of all revolutionaries, between ideological purity and the pragmatic success of his movement.

Mining’s fortunes had always determined the overall economic health of Mexico’s north, as it provided jobs and provided a reliable means of foreign exchange. But, for the revolutionary movement, only the successful operation of the mines and export of their ore meant more revenue to continue fighting. For Villa to succeed in the overall struggle against foreign firms controlling the fate of Mexico, he needed to curry their favor while simultaneously maintaining a consistent, revolutionary popular platform for his troops. This meant convincing his thousands of partisans to help restore railroad service to these mines so that they could continue their export.

In the end, the situation or the Villistas was never meant to last, as the Constitutional government fell into disunity and civil war and Villa’s forces dissolved in the fighting. But on a more basic level, global mineral prices were at their lowest point in decades during 1913 and even in the absence of revolutionary turmoil, most firms were liquidating their investments in Mexican mining anyway. In the end, it was a lot of compromise and bloodshed that begat more compromise and bloodshed, while the American companies were subsidized by the Villista revolution during a time when, as a result of market forces, they would have ordinarily been tempted to abandon their investments.

Source 2: Gilbert, Dennis. “Emiliano Zapata: Textbook Hero” Mexican Studies, Vol. 19, No. 1 (Winter 2003), pp. 127 – 159

Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/msem.2003.19.1.127

Emiliano Zapata is an official national hero of Mexico, by an act of Mexican congress that mandated his name be enshrined in gold script along the Wall of Honor in the legislature building. April 10, the day of his death, is considered a statutory “Day of National Mourning” during which speeches and memorials are commonplace public spectacles. There are more streets that bear his name than all of his more successful contemporaries (Villa, Madero, etc.) combined. The songs, books, poems, odes, articles, ceremonies and other homages to his legacy are too voluminous to number, including the largest equestrian statue in Latin America. At the time of his death in 1919, nobody would have suspected that he might have such a mythic status. He was known as the “Atilla of the South” in the halls of government, vilified in the public press throughout his life, and on top of all of that had been on a steady losing streak between 1915 and his death. What happened to promote him from a reviled rural terrorist to the most celebrated revolutionary hero of Mexico’s history?

The important background for the discussion of Zapata and the resurrection of his legacy is the relationship of the heavily Latinized elite to those who are more visibly Aboriginal. The literature and discourse of the time, generally penned by the elite, expressed disgust and fear at the primitive, provincial ways of “the Indian” and devote their intellectual energy to trying to find a way to integrate them into “civilized life.” These biases drastically affected the way Zapata’s contemporaries, who dismissed his political mission because they believed that he wasn’t capable, as an “Indian”, of having anything serious political vision outside of his immediate grievances. Despite his ignominy, he textbook history would redeem him in the eyes of common students by giving his life a symbolic importance in the overall narrative of Mexican history as it is taught.

The mood that emerged from the decade of chaos and bloodshed that was the Mexican Civil War and the 8 years of lesser, but nonetheless profound, political unrest was one that was looking for a way to understand the last 20 years of its history. Public school textbooks, while not a valuable historical resource in the way their editors intended, give us insights into the process by which Zapata became a crucial figure in understanding the goals of the initial revolution and the roles of others within the revolutionary story.

The common explanation of Zapata in a textbook history is as follows: the charismatic leader of a peasant army, Emiliano Zapata initially rose against Porfirio Diaz (despot) in support of Francisco Madero (democrat), only to have his hopes dashed on the rocks by Victoriano Huerta’s (traitor) coup that reignited the civil war. The similarities to America’s national mythology (democratic rebellion against a foreign-backed autocracy that risked betrayal [Benedict Arnold and the British Loyalist faction]) are worth noting, as the struggle for Latin American national identity has often been contrasted with the constancy of America’s national mythos. Zapata gave Mexico a figure to organize their national consciousness around, despite the fact that the elite Mexicans of his era would have been violently offended to have him representing their society’s values. Over time he was embellished by illustrators to have his now iconic oversized moustache and his dual bandoliers and became the symbol of the revival in agrarian social consciousness during the 1950s.

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Further Readings on Dawson, Chapter 1: "Independence Narratives, Past and Present"

The independence narratives of Simón Bolívar and José Martí are crucial to the understanding of modern politics in Latin America. Their visions of independent nations in solidarity against Spanish imperial control is reflected in Hugo Chávez’s and Fidel Castro’s struggle for autonomy from the United States and domestic dictators. These populist leaders call on independence heroes to strengthen their narratives and maintain their power. By way of this process, the legacies of Bolívar and Martí are kept alive. All four of these individuals are highly controversial, therefore the framing of the media’s perspective of them is essential to criticize.
Source 1: Post, Jerrold M. ““El Fenomeno Chavez:” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Modern Day Bolivar.”The Counterproliferation Papers 39 (2007): ii-38. Print.
            “El Fenomeno Chavez” is a report by Jerrold Post, a professor of political psychology at the George Washington University in the United States. It is a fifty page document analyzing Hugo Chávez’s invocation of Simón Bolívar as the president of Venezuela. It is heavily bias towards the American media’s representation of Chávez as a dictator of a non-democratic nation from the far left. However, the document gives an enlightening analysis of the psychological manipulation Chávez arguably subjected the Venezuelan public by calling on Latin America’s most esteemed independence war hero, Simón Bolívar.
            Chávez is framed by Post as a manipulative political mastermind. One who knew very well the popular support he would receive by channeling Bolívar. He is painted as a unilateral leader that silenced opposition parties by revising the constitution and creating his personal media mediums, such as his own TV show. Post argues that Chávez managed to manipulate the public, violate the constitution, pass undemocratic laws, and maintain presidency by masking his actions with his charismatic personality and his advocacy for the poor. Post makes a direct attack at this “myth” by diagnosing him as having a narcissistic personality. He sharply states:

Chavez is an authoritarian narcissistic leader who has dreams of glory, and can be overly sensitive to criticism. The arrogant certainty conveyed in his public pronouncements is very appealing to his followers. But under this grandiose facade, as is typical with    narcissistic personalities, is extreme insecurity. (12)

Therefore, due to Chávez’s psychological condition, he blames others for his own mal-doing. By stating the above not only does Post undermine Chávez’s charm, but he undermines his political stance against the United States, the significance of the Bolivarian Revolution and his competency as a leader. He frames Chávez’s position as a symptom of his psychological problem; a consequence of his mental capacity and not a validated revolutionary struggle against imperial powers. Chávez is, thus, rendered as an inadequate leader and his criticisms of the States as ludicrous.   
            At the general assembly of the United Nations in 2007, Chávez “ [referred] to President George W. Bush who had addressed the U.N. general assembly the day before, stated, ‘The devil came here yesterday [. . .] And it smells of sulfur still today.’ [. . .] He also stated that the United States was “the first enemy” of its people” (26-27). There is a resemblance between Chávez’s passage and the following passage from Bolíva’s popular “Jamaican Letter” written in 1815. Bolívar writes, “We have already seen the light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into darkness. The chains have been broken; we have been freed, and now our enemies [Spain] seek to enslave us anew” (doc 1.1 in Dawson, 22). They both use powerful allusions, they demonize the hegemonic power and Other it as the enemy of the state. Post captures Chavez’s use of rhetoric as a strategy to embezzle and awe to increase enthusiasm: “Chavez has cultivated a larger-than-life self-image, approaching messianic proportions, yet is not out of touch with political reality. However, at times he seems to become captive of his own inflammatory rhetoric” (12).  
            Chávez’s success is due to his crafting of his self as an image, an ideal, an idea backed by military action and supported by populist legacy. He is able to do this by channeling the idea of Bolívar. Hugo Chávez intentionally embodied Simón Bolívar’s personality and ideologies to help him rise to and maintain power for 14 years (2). Jerrold Post puts it in harsher terms:

Hugo Chavez is a skilled political manipulator, who is adroitly Machiavellian. His continual emphasis of his mission of championing of Bolivarian ideals, his oft stated pride in his being a mestizo, and his continuing emphasis on his own roots in poverty is employed to maintain his hold on power. (15)

It is predominately Chávez’s active adoption of Bolívar’s personable personality traits, political ambitions and ideologies, deft ability to entertain, and legacy that wielded Chávez’s popularity among the members of the Bolivarian cult. Chávez’s  invocation of Bolívar is not Bolívar as a man in his exclusivity, but as an idea that can be used as a political tool for ulterior motives.
Source 2: Castro, Fidel. “Excerpts from “History Will Absolve Me”” Trans. Richard Slatta. (n.d.): n. pag. College Cengage. Web. <http://college.cengage.com/history/world/keen/latin_america/8e/assets/students/sources/pdfs/87_fidel_castro.pdf>.
            In October 1953, Fidel Castro gave a four hour speech in his own defense after the attacks on the Moncada Barracks. Castro’s defense was an attempt to attach his name to the great independence hero of his country, José Martí. It was arguably successful given that he became the Prime Minister of Cuba and remained so until his health deemed him incapable. This speech makes it clear that he is against the Batista dictatorship and their neglect of the poor agricultural inhabitants of Cuba. Castro stresses the importance of equal access to education and land rights. It reads like a manifesto for the revolution he advocates and the rights of the people. But, most importantly, he stresses the required solidarity of all citizens of Cuba, and the locked potential of the country (nature and state).  
            In the sixth enumerated revolutionary law, Castro states:

Furthermore, it was to be declared that Cuban policy in the Americas would be one of close solidarity with the democratic peoples of this continent, and that those politically persecuted by bloody tyrants opposing our sister nations would find generous asylum, brotherhood and bread in the land of Martí; not the persecution and treason they find today. Cuba should be the bulwark of liberty and not a shameful link in the chain of despotism. (5)

Castro is advocating for Cuba’s rightful place to be that of the liberators and upholders of democracy for Latin American nations. He is drawing upon Martí’s more succinct and poetical call from “Our America”, “Let the world be grafted onto our republics, but we must be the trunk” (doc 1.2 in Dawson, 27).  Castro speaks to Cuba as the “land of Martí”. While Martí referred to Cuba as the land of those who inhabit it and as the spirit of the nation, Castro has taken Martí and made him into the embodiment of his ideas. Thus, the “the land of Martí” refers to the independent, fully flourished, and local perseverance of the land and its people. Castro continues, “The greatness and prosperity of our country depends on the healthy and vigorous rural population that loves the land and knows how to till it, within the framework of a State that protects and guides them” (5). This echoes Marti’s powerful phrase, “Let the heart’s fires unfreeze all that is motionless in America, and let the country’s natural blood surge and throb through its veins!” (Dawson, 29). Martí, here, is summoning the local, national potential of the land and those who are most intimitate with it, the farmers, to rise and become active in their own production, as Castro does in his words.

            Castro has a sincere devotion to Martí revolutionary struggle and has channeled in his own revolution. He perceives his efforts as a fulfillment of Martí’s cause. The attack on Batista of which he is being charged were valiant acts of heroism in his name and wishes to be commemorated as such. Castro ends his speech with “Condemn me, it does not matter. History will absolve me!” (6). This speech is more than just a defense, it his successful attempt to win over the people by channeling a national independence hero from Cuban history. 

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Further Readings on Dawson, Chapter 1: "Independence Narratives, Past and Present"

The independence narratives of Simón Bolívar and José Martí are crucial to the understanding of modern politics in Latin America. Their visions of independent nations in solidarity against Spanish imperial control is reflected in Hugo Chávez’s and Fidel Castro’s struggle for autonomy from the United States and domestic dictators. These populist leaders call on independence heroes to strengthen their narratives and maintain their power. By way of this process, the legacies of Bolívar and Martí are kept alive. All four of these individuals are highly controversial, therefore the framing of the media’s perspective of them is essential to criticize.
Source 1: Post, Jerrold M. ““El Fenomeno Chavez:” Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Modern Day Bolivar.”The Counterproliferation Papers 39 (2007): ii-38. Print.
            “El Fenomeno Chavez” is a report by Jerrold Post, a professor of political psychology at the George Washington University in the United States. It is a fifty page document analyzing Hugo Chávez’s invocation of Simón Bolívar as the president of Venezuela. It is heavily bias towards the American media’s representation of Chávez as a dictator of a non-democratic nation from the far left. However, the document gives an enlightening analysis of the psychological manipulation Chávez arguably subjected the Venezuelan public by calling on Latin America’s most esteemed independence war hero, Simón Bolívar.
            Chávez is framed by Post as a manipulative political mastermind. One who knew very well the popular support he would receive by channeling Bolívar. He is painted as a unilateral leader that silenced opposition parties by revising the constitution and creating his personal media mediums, such as his own TV show. Post argues that Chávez managed to manipulate the public, violate the constitution, pass undemocratic laws, and maintain presidency by masking his actions with his charismatic personality and his advocacy for the poor. Post makes a direct attack at this “myth” by diagnosing him as having a narcissistic personality. He sharply states:

Chavez is an authoritarian narcissistic leader who has dreams of glory, and can be overly sensitive to criticism. The arrogant certainty conveyed in his public pronouncements is very appealing to his followers. But under this grandiose facade, as is typical with    narcissistic personalities, is extreme insecurity. (12)

Therefore, due to Chávez’s psychological condition, he blames others for his own mal-doing. By stating the above not only does Post undermine Chávez’s charm, but he undermines his political stance against the United States, the significance of the Bolivarian Revolution and his competency as a leader. He frames Chávez’s position as a symptom of his psychological problem; a consequence of his mental capacity and not a validated revolutionary struggle against imperial powers. Chávez is, thus, rendered as an inadequate leader and his criticisms of the States as ludicrous.   
            At the general assembly of the United Nations in 2007, Chávez “ [referred] to President George W. Bush who had addressed the U.N. general assembly the day before, stated, ‘The devil came here yesterday [. . .] And it smells of sulfur still today.’ [. . .] He also stated that the United States was “the first enemy” of its people” (26-27). There is a resemblance between Chávez’s passage and the following passage from Bolíva’s popular “Jamaican Letter” written in 1815. Bolívar writes, “We have already seen the light, and it is not our desire to be thrust back into darkness. The chains have been broken; we have been freed, and now our enemies [Spain] seek to enslave us anew” (doc 1.1 in Dawson, 22). They both use powerful allusions, they demonize the hegemonic power and Other it as the enemy of the state. Post captures Chavez’s use of rhetoric as a strategy to embezzle and awe to increase enthusiasm: “Chavez has cultivated a larger-than-life self-image, approaching messianic proportions, yet is not out of touch with political reality. However, at times he seems to become captive of his own inflammatory rhetoric” (12).  
            Chávez’s success is due to his crafting of his self as an image, an ideal, an idea backed by military action and supported by populist legacy. He is able to do this by channeling the idea of Bolívar. Hugo Chávez intentionally embodied Simón Bolívar’s personality and ideologies to help him rise to and maintain power for 14 years (2). Jerrold Post puts it in harsher terms:

Hugo Chavez is a skilled political manipulator, who is adroitly Machiavellian. His continual emphasis of his mission of championing of Bolivarian ideals, his oft stated pride in his being a mestizo, and his continuing emphasis on his own roots in poverty is employed to maintain his hold on power. (15)

It is predominately Chávez’s active adoption of Bolívar’s personable personality traits, political ambitions and ideologies, deft ability to entertain, and legacy that wielded Chávez’s popularity among the members of the Bolivarian cult. Chávez’s  invocation of Bolívar is not Bolívar as a man in his exclusivity, but as an idea that can be used as a political tool for ulterior motives.
Source 2: Castro, Fidel. “Excerpts from “History Will Absolve Me”” Trans. Richard Slatta. (n.d.): n. pag. College Cengage. Web. <http://college.cengage.com/history/world/keen/latin_america/8e/assets/students/sources/pdfs/87_fidel_castro.pdf>.
            In October 1953, Fidel Castro gave a four hour speech in his own defense after the attacks on the Moncada Barracks. Castro’s defense was an attempt to attach his name to the great independence hero of his country, José Martí. It was arguably successful given that he became the Prime Minister of Cuba and remained so until his health deemed him incapable. This speech makes it clear that he is against the Batista dictatorship and their neglect of the poor agricultural inhabitants of Cuba. Castro stresses the importance of equal access to education and land rights. It reads like a manifesto for the revolution he advocates and the rights of the people. But, most importantly, he stresses the required solidarity of all citizens of Cuba, and the locked potential of the country (nature and state).  
            In the sixth enumerated revolutionary law, Castro states:

Furthermore, it was to be declared that Cuban policy in the Americas would be one of close solidarity with the democratic peoples of this continent, and that those politically persecuted by bloody tyrants opposing our sister nations would find generous asylum, brotherhood and bread in the land of Martí; not the persecution and treason they find today. Cuba should be the bulwark of liberty and not a shameful link in the chain of despotism. (5)

Castro is advocating for Cuba’s rightful place to be that of the liberators and upholders of democracy for Latin American nations. He is drawing upon Martí’s more succinct and poetical call from “Our America”, “Let the world be grafted onto our republics, but we must be the trunk” (doc 1.2 in Dawson, 27).  Castro speaks to Cuba as the “land of Martí”. While Martí referred to Cuba as the land of those who inhabit it and as the spirit of the nation, Castro has taken Martí and made him into the embodiment of his ideas. Thus, the “the land of Martí” refers to the independent, fully flourished, and local perseverance of the land and its people. Castro continues, “The greatness and prosperity of our country depends on the healthy and vigorous rural population that loves the land and knows how to till it, within the framework of a State that protects and guides them” (5). This echoes Marti’s powerful phrase, “Let the heart’s fires unfreeze all that is motionless in America, and let the country’s natural blood surge and throb through its veins!” (Dawson, 29). Martí, here, is summoning the local, national potential of the land and those who are most intimitate with it, the farmers, to rise and become active in their own production, as Castro does in his words.

            Castro has a sincere devotion to Martí revolutionary struggle and has channeled in his own revolution. He perceives his efforts as a fulfillment of Martí’s cause. The attack on Batista of which he is being charged were valiant acts of heroism in his name and wishes to be commemorated as such. Castro ends his speech with “Condemn me, it does not matter. History will absolve me!” (6). This speech is more than just a defense, it his successful attempt to win over the people by channeling a national independence hero from Cuban history. 

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Speaking truth to Power

“As a rule, Latin American states are weak. They have always found it difficult to collect taxes, enforce their own laws, govern their territories, and command obedience and loyalty absent the threat of violence (that we might call their “hegemony”) This specific statement that begins the chapter of Dawson’s book was like a bullet to […]

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Speaking Truth to Power

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Speaking Truth to Power

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Speaking Truth to Power

This week I am going to focus on Document 10.1 and Document 10.8. Document 10.1 is a video that is taken from a television news interview in the Plaza de Mayo during the late 1970’s. In the video Argentine mothers … Continue reading →

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Week 8: Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age Research Paper

Source 1: Meyers, William K. “Pancho Villa and the Multinationals: U.S. Mining Interests in Villista Mexico, 1913-15” Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2 (May, 1991), pp. 339-336Link: http://www.jstor.org/stable/157028The career of Pa…

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Speaking truth to Power

“As a rule, Latin American states are weak. They have always found it difficult to collect taxes, enforce their own laws, govern their territories, and command obedience and loyalty absent the threat of violence (that we might call their “hegemony”) This specific statement that begins the chapter of Dawson’s book was like a bullet to […]

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with

Speaking Truth To Power

In these texts and videos, we see how in different ways human rights groups emerge across Latin America during the 1970s and onwards with clear targets. We see how when states become weak and are unable or unwilling to recognize human rights, violence, protests, and speaking up through mediums of communication technologies come about. In […]

Posted in Blogs | Tagged with