Week 11: Dirty War

I was really happy this week to see that we would be discussing the Cold War in Latin America. I think that the reason why by the 1980's few of the countries mentioned had democratic governments was largely due to U.S. subversion in fear of communism. Latin America during this time seems to be heavily ideological; groups are created within every subset of identity and strongly politicized. Peasants, hacendados, caciques, politicians, and elites all existed within political niches with varying levels of credibility and political capital. I found the story of Peru to be especially confusing this week. I think this is largely because from what I have read, I have always viewed socialist groups within Latin America as the sort of moral underdog; I think of Che and the sort of heroism he generated ideologically. The Shining Path, due to their embrace of gratuitous violence lost any form of heroism. The kind of violence they employed lacked any real justification and seemed largely dependent on who was exerting violence and at what moment.
I also think the idea of the disappeared is so specific to a Latin American context. In many countries without notice thousand of individuals are causally disposed of by the government. It creates a sort of panic that allows the state to really hold power over the people as they feel never safe. These lost individuals also occupy such a liminal space, as they are denied political rights but also denied identities within the state. The state exerts such absolute power generating fear and trauma. The disappeared also bring into question body politics. What does it mean if the state doesn't recognize bodies as having agency? The disposal of people like material objects creates a human rights tension between people and government as they feel like they can experience violence on a whim. I liked the introduction of the reflective interview style of writing; I think first-hand accounts are really the most powerful at generating empathy and are the best way to get large audiences engaged.
I would like to see more primary sources about United States involvement in different Latin American conflicts. I know that CIA training was often a crucial turning point in U.S. backed interventionism. I also think it is interesting to think of student uprising as the United States had a negative response to young activism surrounding the Vietnam war.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Week 13: Towards and Uncertain Future

For this week, I decided to write about Chile. Chile is in the middle of a decisive moment as students went to the streets to protest against a rise in metro costs. The unrest is surprising as Chile lauds itself for being one of the most prosperous countries in Latin America. For my articles this week, I picked two opinion peaces that look into the nuances of the situation. The first piece, by the New York Times, titled Chile Learns the Price of Economic Inequality, examines the protests in the context of economic prosperity. While the Chilean economy is quite strong, the economic inequality means that only a few benefit from the wealth. Public spending on hospitals, public welfare, and more general methods of distributing wealth are virtually nonexistent. The article also points out that while the protesters began their movement after the rise in bus fare, tensions have existed for a long time due to this evident wealth inequality. The wealth gap in Chile is incredibly visual; San...
Read more

Week 7: Porfirio Díaz

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....
Read more

Week 12: Speaking Truth To Power

This week's reading was incredibly powerful to read. I have learned about the Madre's before; their white bonnets seem to have become a symbol of resistance. The concept of the disappeared within Latin American politics is an interesting positionality. In the eyes of the state, individuals are reduced to bodies where no rights are guaranteed. Its such a devastating position as there is no sense of justice; the feeling is alien to me as I have always lived somewhere with a certain extent of due process. The Madres were successful because of their position as older women; the government could not kill mothers and grandmothers in the public sphere without large reproductions. This could be attributed to significant gender roles. As women were seen as fragile, homemakers, and child-bearers, there was an element of weakness associated with their murder. However, I believe this was true for the Madres because they had already gained global attention. The Argentinian government had no...
Read more