Reply to Hannah Week 2

Regarding your first paragraph, I also found the way that nations set up their economic policies very interesting. It was also interesting to see how the export-oriented economy worked really well for some and not so well for others. For example, like you said Peru had been using guano as a nitrate export but soon the market crashed because they had exhausted their reserves. On the other hand, you can look at Argentina and their exportation of beef. They started with their long horn cattle and moved to short horn when it became necessary for them to do so. They're still known for their beef today. I think that by looking at these two countries it is easy to see that a component of success comes from a nation's flexibility to a changing market.

Week 2

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have been discussing Esteban Echevarria's "The Slaughterhouse" and Domingo Faustino Sarmiento's Facundo: Civilizacion y Barbarie. Both readings comment on Buenos Aires and the separation between Federalists and Unitarians in Argentina. After reading “The Slaughterhouse” I told my group about how I couldn’t help but draw comparisons between Echevarria’s short story and another short story I read in high school titled “The Lottery.” “The Lottery” follows the story of a small town where all citizens must participate in a lottery. Throughout the story it is unclear what winning the lottery means but it is made clear that town attendance is incredibly important. When the winner for the lottery is drawn, it turns out to be one of the characters whose life we had been following up until that point. The town leaders then state that the children should “go first” and the children being to throw rocks at the character. It then becomes clear that the “winner” of the lottery is stoned to death by the other townspeople. The lottery is about why we follow tradition but a parallel can be drawn between that short story and “The Slaughterhouse” in the blind willingness of the masses to commit atrocities and overlook brutal violence for seemingly unjustifiable reasons. “The Lottery” cites tradition as a reason for the townspeople’s’ brutality but “The Slaughterhouse” cites the political divide and the leaders of the Federalist party for the unprovoked violence of the masses. I think that both readings offer an interesting view on some of the ways in which humans justify their actions and both bring forward the question: what am I blindly following do to tradition or authority?

Reply to Allison

I totally see where you’re coming from. There are so many things that go into building a new nation such as some of the things that you mentioned but I would also like to add that I believe that all these factors can alter the way that we view the leader at that time. I think when looking back on history, we like to decide whether someone was a good or bad person rather than a good or bad leader. I think we look back and say that they chose to do form the country under their rule in a certain way because they are inherently good or inherently bad but I believe that it’s a lot more complicated than that. Like you said there are an incredible number of factors that go into forming a new nation and a leader may thing that they’re making a good decision at the time and it could end up costing the country dearly. Additionally, leaders make their decisions from their own experiences and the advice of others and with humans there is generally some sort of bias which influences their decision.

Week 1

This past week in Latin American Civilization we have been learning about the formation of post-independence Latin American countries and the debates on how the country should be ran regarding topics such as political, social, and economic policy. In both sections of the class we’ve been delving into the differences between liberalism and conservatism and their impacts in different areas of Latin America. It was interesting for me to see the impact that the United States had on a lot of Latin American countries as being in this class has given me a new perspective. All throughout grade school I was very interested in United States history but seeing it through the eyes of another country has been fascinating. In class, we have discussed the fact that the Latin American countries looked to Europe and North America as a model to base their countries off which creates a sort of magnifying effect for the United States as we consider what ideas were applied to their countries. I think what really struck me was the differences in the emphasis placed on individualism in North America and Europe and the sense of community in Latin America. While reading about the history of the United States it never occurred to me the degree in which our background is firmly planted in the idea of the individual. As we worked our way through the lecture and the discussion, the saying “pulling yourself up by the bootstraps” kept occurring to me because it exemplifies the American ideal of fixing your problems without the assistance of others. As capitalism spread in Latin America, so did the importance of the individual and this idea was so different than the sense of community that these countries were used to. This infecting force of capitalism dramatically altered the ways of life in Latin America, as a sense of community was de-emphasized, this change can be accounted for as an attributing factor as to why capitalism and modernization lead to chaos in those areas.