Latin America Since Independence. Introduction & Chapter One

In this weeks readings I found the authors introduction almost more interesting than the first chapter. The reason for this is in how history is described. The author argues that history is fragmented. A series of interconnected stories and tales from varying perspectives. We are used to reading history as fact, as truth. This seems to me to be quite wrong. History is written by the victors as the saying goes. More likely history is written by everyone, and we only see that which survives. How many original viewpoints have been lost through the ages? How many contradictions to our understood "history"? This to me is a major aspect of studying any history from any time period and any location. However it is extremely appropriate in this course on Latin America. With its diversity of cultures and circumstances we must take into account the fragmented aspect of history in order to gain any understanding at all.

On chapter one itself I found the theme of fragmentation of history continued (as the author stated it would) I find this very apt as Latin America itself is fragmented in many ways. Geography, social status, language, culture. The area we know as Latin America is hugely diverse and ever changing. This idea also seemed to be prevalent in the historical excerpts as well. Simon Bolivar speaks about the various different revolutionary movements in the Americas and the sheer impossibility of creating a unified republic from them. Jose Marti also speaks to variety, the clashes between the dualities of society, the countryside versus the city. He speaks of how they must join together to create a truly American government for the nations of the Americas. Throughout these documents and the text the idea of a fragmented society and nations is prevalent and I believe it is still a massive challenge to many nations in Latin America and around the world.