Week 5
The biggest thing I took out of this week's lecture is the cost of independence. The violence of Latin America in the 19th century depicted a very fractured place. One can't help but wonder that all of this just stems from the deep colonial roots that Latin America experienced.
The Caudillo system reminds me of the dynamics depicted in mobster movies (I'm pretty sure there are scenes in the second Godfather that depict this dynamic, but correct me if I'm wrong. My memory is bad). What interests me in the system is the popularity of it; I suppose the popularity of it comes from the ability to maintain a specific relationship with a specific individual. You're able to put a distinct face to your politics. Regarding the Liberal elite, it didn't really help that there was a tone of condescension from them in discussing the ideas and concepts of Liberalism. I figure that the figures discussing the concepts were instrumental in the alienation of the public re: the ideology.
I do believe this system is immensely problematic, and is quite destructive in scope. I personally think it reinforces an idea that we discussed last class/lecture, the problematic elements of what independence can contribute to a society. In discussion, we took note that the people who primarily benefitted from independence were people already in a distinct social elite, while many other would continue to suffer, if not more so. It feels as if the caudillo system ensures that equality is something that a group is unable to attain.
I realized that I haven't provided a question all these weeks. Not out of laziness, I just kept forgetting. Anyways...
Do the systems and ideologies discussed (the caudillo system and liberalism, respectively) actively contribute to positive depiction or negative depiction of independence?
The Caudillo system reminds me of the dynamics depicted in mobster movies (I'm pretty sure there are scenes in the second Godfather that depict this dynamic, but correct me if I'm wrong. My memory is bad). What interests me in the system is the popularity of it; I suppose the popularity of it comes from the ability to maintain a specific relationship with a specific individual. You're able to put a distinct face to your politics. Regarding the Liberal elite, it didn't really help that there was a tone of condescension from them in discussing the ideas and concepts of Liberalism. I figure that the figures discussing the concepts were instrumental in the alienation of the public re: the ideology.
I do believe this system is immensely problematic, and is quite destructive in scope. I personally think it reinforces an idea that we discussed last class/lecture, the problematic elements of what independence can contribute to a society. In discussion, we took note that the people who primarily benefitted from independence were people already in a distinct social elite, while many other would continue to suffer, if not more so. It feels as if the caudillo system ensures that equality is something that a group is unable to attain.
I realized that I haven't provided a question all these weeks. Not out of laziness, I just kept forgetting. Anyways...
Do the systems and ideologies discussed (the caudillo system and liberalism, respectively) actively contribute to positive depiction or negative depiction of independence?
Relatively, I believe that the movement of 'independence' itself would be a positive depiction for the inhabitants in Latin America. Because Latin America as a whole was suffering from the colonial rule, whether the amount of suffering may be different depending on the family's social status. Caudillo system was clearly a negative depiction of independence because it broadened the gap of social hierarchy between the indigenous/slaves and the creoles in Latin America.
ReplyDelete