Daisy, Latin American Studies 2019

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...

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...

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 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...