Week 8: Signs of Crisis in a Gilded Age

This topic was building off last weeks material about the beginning of modernity in Latin America. Dawson describes this period of modernity in Latin America as the “gilded” age instead of “golden” alluding to the many problems that the region faced. With modernity and progress came a lot of regress as well, or as Jon puts in the lecture video as how modernity had “produced pockets of barbarism of its own”. This concept of a superficial modernity resonated and there was definitely a push and pull between what could be and what was. As said in the lecture video “some countries got modernity in bits”, why do think this is?

During this time the United States became a prominent force in region, metaphorically “flexing its muscles” as it became the dominant global power. There was definitely an admiration for the great power that the United States possessed, however they were also threatening to the region as it still felt the residual effects of colonialism. This is shown through Nicaraguan poet, Ruben Dario’s poem “Letter to Roosevelt”, which was certainly a complex response to the presence of the United States. It showed great respect and admiration, yet served as also a warning (especially seen through the last line of the poem)- in a sense to make them beware of the consequences in taking their intervention. Dario addresses the United States as “grand and powerful”, however the use of “No” is where the discourse changes. The second text we looked at was Mexican, Jose Vasconcelo’s essay “The Cosmic Race” (made 10 years after the “Letter to Roosevelt”). This text infuses many different ideologies and methods of communication to communicate social and cultural ideas. How do you think these texts compare and how are they different? What do they communicate about the social and cultural conditions of their times? How does this reflect the change in modalities of representation?

This period also included many revolutions as new “age” meant a new start and many regions within Latin America were reforming their constitutions. These new revolutions were very inspired by revolutions of the past as a way to establish their legitimacy. They have to appeal to the past and that’s what a lot of leaders. People were trying to start over, but it wasn’t entirely possible, in some ways the troubled past of the region still haunted them. Re-inventing constitutions seems to be a big reoccurrence in Latin America, why do you think this is?