Commerce, Coercion, and America's Empire

This weeks reading was very interesting to me. It is clear to me that learning about the market in commodities, like bananas, can shape outsiders' views about places of exportation/expropriation is important. To me, it really sheds light on how certain stereotypes were formed for political reasons. Cartoons establish/enforce stereotypes which allow empires of the global north to appear benevolent in their involvement in places such as Latin America and mask their hegemony to the public. In document 6.4 "From the Noble Savage to the Third World", Dorfman critically analyses cartoons to reveal their political role in hegemony in "third world" countries. Among many examples, Dorfman concludes that by stereotyping the people of developing nations as the "noble savage" excludes them from the use of their domestic resources because "noble savages" are "forbidden to become civilized" and "because [they do] not even understand that these objects have been produced" and/or they are "of no use" to them. The discourse evident in these cartoons reminded me of Columbus' Journal, when he described trading with the 'indians' bits of cotton or gold for pieces of broken plates. I wonder if this is where these stereotypes began? -this way of representing a society that one hopes to obtain dominance over. Essentially this is still colonialism that is taking place, whether Latin America has gained independence from Spain or not. In the early 20th century, in Guatemala, these tactics of domination happened on an international level (US-Latin American relations with UFCO) and on a national level (elites-indigenous relations) as well, at the beginning of coffee exportation in the 1870s. During this time, advertisements in Latin America strategically blended US ideals and Latin American familiarities to build consumerism. In the US, advertisements promoted consumerism of Latin American products by creating appealing imaginaries of a cultural 'other', while at the same time sending stereotypical/political messages to desensitize the public from injustices, and give reason for their political actions in Latin America. 

I would like to write about the third document in this weeks reading, which is an excerpt from La raza cosmica by Jose Vasconcelos in 1925. This document was about three stages of social progress: The first being of material and war, the second of intellect and politics, and the third of spirituality and aesthetics.    He argues that societies naturally flow through this step by step progression to a society of fantasy and feeling. He claims that his society at the time is on the cusp of the third stage. To my understanding, he argues that the reasoning for a society  to be stuck in the lower stages is due to arranged marriages where people have no choice but to stay in a relationship with someone they do not love, for political reasons. In the second stage, people put too much trust in intellect and in turn limit the nation and individuals' actions.  he suggests that this lack of freedom for "taste" is what breeds ugliness in people, and that ugliness causes inferiority rather than race. So, if people are given the freedom of choice in their partners, other's wouldn't be offended by inter-racial marriage since eventually, do to an evolution of selection, they would both be beautiful people (like a goddess and god) and it wouldn't matter to them. I couldn't help but ask myself "am i reading this correctly?"(please correct me if i am not!). Vasconcelos first disagrees with eugenics saying that they are 'based on incomplete and false data", but his own theory seems just as superficial. I will acknowledge that perhaps he is not speaking of physical beauty but of love, which emanates beauty. According the the textbook like Dario, Vasconcelos was addressing the United States in particular, accusing their racist norms belonging to a lower social stage, and compares Latin America's more accepting attitude towards racial mixing to be a trait which will send them into the next social stage. Also, like in Dario's poem ' To Roosevelt', Vasconcelos speaks of a godliness which they possess that is unreachable to the US. To me, this document expresses his pride of his nation, and a certainty for success.

A Representation of Porfirio Diaz

This weeks reading was an article written in 1908 by James Creelman titles “Porfirio Díaz, Hero of the Americas”. The article is an attempt to create a benevolent image if Diaz in his last year of presidency. Although Diaz was seen by many as an authoritarian leader, the article tries to let Diaz justify his strict policies of capital punishment and rights to vote. the President acknowledges that they "were harsh to the point of cruelty. But it was all necessary then to the life and progress of the nation". Aside from flattering descriptions of the President's appearance, the article is laced with a number of contradictions. One is in regards to his reasoning for the restrictions put on priests. Diaz claims to be a believer in democracy however restricted priests not only from wearing "distinctive dress" in public but also, he "allowed no priest to vote". His reason being, was so that "the humblest Mexican shall be so far freed from the past that he can stand upright and unafraid in the presence of any human being". However, a typical photo of Diaz is usually in distinctive military dress, which does not free people of the past and it comes across as intimidating. Not to mention the descriptions of Diaz in this article seem to create him into some sort of super-human, or at least someone to be admired and seen as 'above' the rest. I think that the article can be convincing at times, however only if one is not aware of, or forgets Diaz's history of authoritarian leadership. I wonder, what was the author's intention in writing this article? was it to give the President a 'final word' before his retirement? what was the point in describing him in such a 'romantic' way? was this simply the trending style of writer's at the time to gain interest from the reader? I do not know a lot about the history of Porfirio Diaz, and honestly never heard the name before this week. Perhaps there are other's that might say this article had political intentions, however, i cannot say that because i do not know enough. It does seem that the author is intentionally portraying Diaz in a way that seems very suggestive. There seems to be a lot of focus on the economic growth of Mexico during the time Diaz was in power. However, to me, this does not seem to paint the whole picture of a countries success, happiness, and freedom. What is the reasoning for this focus? Is it because there was such an economic boom in Latin America at the time that liberalism and the growing market was their evaluation of success?

 

  

"Citizenship and Rights in the New Republics"

  There were three documents that stood out the most for me in this weeks reading. Those documents are 3.1 "The Fetishist Animism of the Bahian Blacks" by Raimundo Nina Rodrigues, 3.4 "Brushstrokes" by Maria Eugenia Echenique, and 3.5 "Women: Dedicated to Miss Maria Eugenia Echenique" by Judith [Josefina Pelliza de Sagasta].  Document 3.1, to my understanding,  is a discussion of the evolution of fetishism and the evidence of its prevalence in Bahia, despite the claim of Christianity of the Black population. Nina Rodrigues states a position of "upmost neutrality and impartiality" however also describes the Bahian Blacks and mulattos as "inferior races". I wonder if Nina Rodrigues recognized his own hypocrisy which today seems so foolish. Such hypocrisy is evident later in his ideas that the violence placed on slaves to rid them of fetishism was due to slave owners' fears that the salves might have a will of their own. To me, this is exactly what this document is trying to do. Although it acknowledges a prevalence of fetishism, I think that it uses this finding as a tool to other and reinforce a primitive, non-human ( or at least non-christian) understanding of the Bahian Blacks in order to disempower them and give reason for any denial of citizen rights. 

  Document 3.4 by Maria Eugenia Echenique and document 3.5, which is a response to 3.4,  were in regards to women's rights in society. 3.4 surprised me, in a good way, because this is the earliest document i have read that calls for the equality of women and men. The issues Echenique discusses are still issues women fight for today around the world. However, i was surprised (mostly) that the response to Echenique's piece was written by a woman. My first reaction was that -if i read such a response to a call for the equality of women in today's Canadian context, i would think of it as 'unwomanly' however i realize that our society is quite different (but not opposite), thanks to the feminist movements which have taken place since the early 20th century up until now. My reaction was probably the reaction of Judith, in her context, which led her to such a disheartening response. Having said all of that, i would like to share something i came across in a magazine about 20 minutes after reading these two documents. It was an add for a kitchen knife -one of the big ones you need to cut the big veggies with. All the add was, was a close up of a woman's profile and the knife, sort of 'swung' over her shoulder as if it were a rifle or some other gun ( i don't know guns), and the look on the woman's face (as though looking far into the distance) expressed, bravery, empowerment, and ambition. When i saw this i laughed because to me is was saying exactly what Judith was saying -Women are free to be educated and empowered, but her power is to remain confined to the home. This is what made me rethink my first reaction to the response. Perhaps no one is saying it out loud but women are still being shown their 'place' in society, and there are still other women that would defend this position.

  I think that the all of these articles must have influenced society as much as they were  a result of it. I see an underlying theme of Christianity in all three articles which explains their reasoning and where they drew their 'facts' of what society should look like. It is evident that Christianity still held a lot of power. The first and last document are written from an essentialist point of view, that there is something about the essence of Blacks and women which make them different from whites and males. The whole discussion is still influenced by colonialism and that first question posed by Father Montesinos: "Are these not men?".