Response to Katlyn

        I thought your idea about the past influencing the future was really interesting! I also liked how you were able to compare it to situations in the United States with African Americans, especially at a time in which race and gender relations are being brought to the forefront with the Black Lives Matter and Women's protests. To answer your question, I do think the past histories of Mexico did play a part in why Mexico is seen as an impoverished, and in some cases a dangerous country today. I think that beginning their country with political instability set a bad tone for how the country would function in the future. As you mentioned, the presidents were overthrown and many didn't fulfill their entire term, so I believe the lack of leadership in the beginning of their days as a country led to problems that continue today. Even now, Mexico's president is not favored by the citizens, and the lack of having a strong president to stand behind causes a disunity and question of nationalism among the people.

Week Three

            This week in class, we talked about Mexican independence and their fight against the United States in the Mexican American War. Throughout this war, both the Mexican and American forces fought strongly, but in the end, the fact that Mexico was ill prepared for war and ran out of ammo caused the United States to win. One thing that stood out to me during our discussion in Professor Stark’s part of the class is that oftentimes the Mexican American War is an overlooked or under exaggerated part of history. In my high school history classes, I recall talking about the war, but the only thing that was emphasized was the fact that the United States gained more territory in the southwest. The fact that I knew so little about this war made me question why it was not more focused on in high schools. Is it because it’s viewed as an insignificant part in our history? Or perhaps that the outcome was not worth the struggle?   

            Another thing I found interesting about our discussion was the fact that most Mexican presidents were overthrown and that only a select few remained for their whole term. I found this surprising because in the history of the United States there are very few cases of presidents being impeached or resigning, so hearing that it was so common in Mexico made me realize how different our political institutions really are. This goes along with the idea of modernity that we were talking about in Professor Serrata’s class, and the idea that although Latin Americans were using the United States as an example of progress, they were not able to completely mimic them because both nations had different pasts and histories.

Response to Allison

        I was also confused about the meaning of the bull before we had the discussion in class. Originally, I thought the bull represented the two political parties, Unitarians and Federalists, rather than just the Unitarians. I thought that because the bull created so much chaos, Echeverría was trying to show that the division between the parties created chaos among the innocent, especially when the child was beheaded and no one seemed to care. I do also think that he found the Federalists worse than the Unitarians because he portrayed the Unitarian man as a noble and courageous man who was not going to succumb to the Federalists. He made the Federalists, however, seem like they were the barbarians even though they viewed themselves as civilized. This was shown in his use of satire in which he was mocking the way the Federalists acted and their ways of life.

Week Two

        One main focus during class this week was in regards to Domingo Faustino Sarmiento’s Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism. In this document, Sarmiento writes about his “ideal” view of Argentina. He wants a unique nation modeled off of the United States and wants to unite the people of Argentina. He contradicts himself, however, because while he speaks about unity among the Argentinians, he clearly distinguishes between the civilized city people and the barbaric country folk. He looks down upon the gauchos and the uneducated people who live in the country, and even speaks about wanting to get rid of them. I found this separation of city folk and country folk similar to the conflict between the elites and working class/indigenous that we talked about last week. One of the main reasons there were conflicts between both groups was because the educated looked down upon the uneducated, and viewed them as inferior. 

        One thing I found hard to understand this week was what Sarmiento wanted in terms of the new nation. His contradictions made it confusing especially in regards to what he wanted to do with the uneducated and whether he wanted to incorporate them into society or not. He wrote about wanting to unite the nation, but also wanted to get rid of the dangerous barbarians. Personally, I felt like this hurt his credibility because it made it seem as if he was using the concept of unity to gain support even though I was unsure of who he wanted to unite—the whole nation or just the “civilized?”   

Response to Brandon

           I also shared your surprise when learning that the majority of people favored the conservative ideals. Personally, I think I was surprised because we talk so much about new ideas and progress that we forget to think about the other group of people that are opposed to moving forward. Like we discussed in class, I also think that a majority of the people didn’t want to start over completely, so by having some conservative preferences, they could ensure a similar way of life to the one they were used to.

            I think that is one of the reasons why the king was looked upon so highly—because he was a symbol of protection to the people, and they were so used to having this constant presence that the fear of abolishing a monarchy took over. As with anything, I do think there were people who were more radical and opposed the king’s rule, and these are probably the people that we hear of in history books and shows because they make for a good story.

Week One

           One thing I took away from this week’s discussion was in regards to the cultural conflict between the liberals and conservatives. The conflict stemmed from more than just social class differences and included political and economic reasons for struggle as well. In past history classes, when talking about conflicts between groups of people, we often overlooked political and economic causes and focused solely on class or race differences. The fact that we took the time to analyze all aspects of the conflict shows that there are always more perspectives to consider. In Burns’ document, “The Nineteenth Century: Progress and Cultural Conflict,” he included the effects of progress on Latin American nations that were trying to modernize. He explained that some people were in favor of incorporating new technologies and economic policies into their lives, and some were opposed, wanting to keep their previous way of life. I related this to nowadays, and the technology boom that occurred in the early 2000s. Smart phones and computers, for example, were both controversial topics when they were first invented and brought into society because at this point people had access to more information than ever before. This concept not only excited people for the future, but also frightened some who were unsure of the intentions of this new technology. This idea is similar to the division of people in Latin America during the 19^th century when some people wanted to progress and move forward, but other’s feared the results of modernization and change.

            One thing I really enjoyed about class this week was the activity that required us to stand in circles and talk with different people. It was nice to be able to answer questions that were student-lead and be able to talk to people that were not in our learning communities. It helped me see different perspectives of Burns’ document, many of which I hadn’t considered myself.