LAST100

This week's readings illustrated the effects of modernization that landed to Latin America slowly and unevenly. While modernization seemingly pushed societies forward by introducing new forms of technology and infrastructure, it only benefitted big cities and the elites, leaving the countryside struggling. Juan Carlos Mariátegui criticizes in "The Problem of the Indian"  the gamonalismo system in Peru, which allowed the European landowners exploit the indigenous people. He proposes that the feudal system should be revoked and the indigenous allowed to own their land. This piece reflects the issues that the people living in rural areas, mostly indigenous encountered even if modernization had begun. Through all of this weeks readings it becomes evident that Latin America had profound admiration towards their North American counterparts, but simultaneously they viewed themselves fundamentally different from them. This is especially highlighted in Daríos poem in which he ackn

This week I would like to focus on the issue of modernity. As discussed in lecture this week, modernity is thought to bring about emancipation and enlightenment and quit injustice and discrimination. However, modernity, as defined in the West, almost always equals a transformation from the traditional into capitalism and mass consumption. Controversially, capitalism has mostly benefitted the wealthy northern nations by exploiting the Global South, which has increased injustice and underdevelopment. Through these readings, it seems evident to me that the frames Europe and the West put on Latin America never served them well. Liberalism, capitalism and democracy weren't things that Latin American societies considered natural or important at the time, but they were enforced anyway. Therefore, my question this week might seem quite absurd, but if it had been up to the Latin American societies, how would they have defined modernity? What kind of things would they have considered worthy

This week I would like to focus on issue of women's emancipation and the two texts by María Eugenia Echenique and Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta. I found these two pieces particularly interesting, since they got me thinking about the current state women's status in Latin America. During my stay in Argentina, I found the atmosphere around feminism and women's rights quite anxious. There were major demonstrations against the laws concerning abortion and femicidios, which continue to threaten the lives of women throughout Latin America. Women were considered as respectful figures, especially at home but simultaneously they are faced with the threats of the machismo culture and patriarchy.  In her writing, María Eugenia Echenique argues that women should become less sensible, spiritual and soft and become more practical and rational in order to become liberated. She both criticizes affect but at the same time she recognizes its worth. On the other hand, Josefina Pelleza de Sagasta

To me, this weeks readings painted a dark and chaotic picture of the post-independence era in Latin America. After gaining independence from their colonizers, Latin America continued to struggle with wars and conflicts of all sorts. Central authority resulted extremely difficult for a number of reasons. For example, territories were large and people lived far away from each other, and institutions, such as the church, had lost its authority over the people. Caudillos were then figures who entered the space of power. They were able to defend their interests to the state, often through immense violence. Conflicts normally emerged between the peasants and the liberal elites, where the caudillos stood in between, defending the disadvantaged.  I found it quite interesting that liberalism, in which we so profoundly believe in the West, was seen as something rather unwelcome. I think caudillaje was attractive because they were mostly local people, with lot's of charisma and they were conc