Daisy, Latin American Studies 2019

I found Eva Perón to be incredibly compelling as a leader and historical figure. In my history of Mexico class, we talk a lot about how within Mexico women were either seen as prostitutes or angels and there was very little space for them to occupy in between. Evita existed in a complex space where she had tremendous political capital and agency yet was constantly demeaned by sexual insults. Culturally, where machismo is very prevalent, women's purity is of utmost importance. Sexually liberated women were seen as deviant and untrustworthy. Yet the distinction seems to be surrounding women in positions of political power. Carmen Miranda was celebrated for her sexuality yet had she tried to be in a position of power, I would find it likely that she would be berated for her loose image. While I did find Eva Perón to be a compelling speaker, I was a little wary of her language use. She constantly frames herself as belonging to her husband. While I understand it was a tactic to delegat

I learned a lot about the United States presence in Guatemala growing up. I think there is something especially consumable about a war waged based on fruit. While I appreciate Dawson's use of this example, I think that it obscures and takes place of other extremely violent forms of United States interventionism. The Cold War resulted in some of the most despicable maneuvers that are often left untouched in Latin American history courses such as the heavy involvement in the Sandanista movement. I wish that textbooks and more accessible literature widened their scope of example. Nicaragua is one of the most compelling revolutions in my opinion just from the massive female involvement in creating a new government. In reading about the United Fruit Company, I remembered a Pablo Neruda poem titled "United Fruit Co." When the trumpet sounded everything was prepared on earth, and Jehovah gave the world to Coca-Cola Inc., Anaconda, Ford Motors, and other corporations. The Unit

This week I wanted to really analyze "To Roosevelt" as many of its references seemed rich although I couldn't understand them all. The first two lines seem to mean that the United States only responds to certain forms of political discourse; countries that share similar religious and political values are allowed into the political arena. Darío points out that much of the American identity is rooted in old colonial figures like George Washington, as Mexico often participates in a similar worship of dead political figures. This necro nationalism permeates both country's identities. Nebuchadnezzar is both a biblical reference but also a greater homage to hegemonic powers. The Babylonian king had expansive control and influence over the area; similar to the way that the United States' influence reached the entire world. Darío reprimands to the United States as too quick to use violence because they believe the "future is wherever your bullet strikes." This i

I think this primary source was the most interesting yet for me to read. Having always thought of Díaz as a violent dictator, it was really fascinating to see an American account of how he was the democratic ideal. There were a few spots in the article that I found particularly compelling. The first was how Díaz referred to an opposing political party as "enemies." It seemed so obvious to me at this moment that he was incredibly disingenuous about his political processes. Democratic discourse is not a question of enemies but rather fair opposition. In light of the fact that he rigged the election against Madero in 1910. The second was the American sentiment that saturated the piece. As an American myself, there is often this sort of trope of someone who starts from nowhere and then picks himself up and becomes wealthy. I think the idea that Díaz came from little and was able to become the father of modernization in Mexico was particularly consumable to an American audience.

This week's reading posed an interesting comparison between North and South America. Initially, it seemed as though North America had some version of high ground due to the lack of participation in the slave trade in comparison to southern neighbors. Yet that seemed to be completely unaligned with the history I have learned about the United States. I found it really interesting how race and slavery were so intertwined. The United States created an impossible situation for people of color as their entire identity was based upon the history of slavery. When freed slaves visited Brazil they felt a better sense of equality than at home. I wondered what this actually looked like in practice. What was day to day life like for a person of color in Rio? While both were clearly immoral and abominable in the treatment of people of color it's quite interesting to try and understand each country in the context of the other. I also found it interesting to read Latin American feminist acco

This week I was particularly interested in the Story of Santa Anna. As I am learning about him in the context of Mexican history, I have noticed how he is presented greatly differs from each source. In the context of Mexican history, Santa Anna is sort of a joke. His eleven sporadic presidencies, often weak and corrupt, portray Mexico as incredibly unstable. He was a president that was only present to achieve military victories; when it came to ruling he was absent, even giving leadership to his vice president while he still held the title of presidency. It seems that he is both so contrary to caudillo culture as he is representative. The idea of a caudillo is that he is a "strongman" who uses force yet exerts the most meticulous and paternal care to the people under his protection. Santa Anna as a leader was far from this, often being removed from office or having little control over Mexico. Yet during battles, he emulates the caudillo, fighting with utmost loyalty to protec