"Slaughterhouse" as a Political Allegory and in Hindseight

It is made apparent that "The Slaughterhouse (El Matadero)" by Esteban Echeverría is a political allegory. The men of the slaughterhouse represent the federalists and Matasiete could be Rosas. The bull and the young man who is tortured represent Unitarian resistance. The slaughterhouse is set in the city drawing the line between city and rural, Federalist and Unitarian. The tale is one of resistance but also a mockery of the civilized/barbaric dualism. The federalist claimed to be civilized while the Unitarians were painted to be barbaric in need of civilization. However, Echevarría illustrates that the barbaric men fighting over whether the bull is a bull or a steer are the Federalist. They indulge in killing, making haste decisions on instinct or lust for blood, and skirting the law. An example of this is when Echevarría writes, "The rules of proper social practice dictated that the animal be thrown to the dogs; but there was such a lack of meat, and so many inhabitants were going hungry, that His Honor the Judge was forced to turn a blind eye" (67). Many theorize that the clash in Latin America since colonialism has been one of civilization vs barbarism, European vs "primitive and violent" American ways. Through this story, Echeverría hopes to denounce Rosas protection of thugs who murder innocent people at the Buenos Aires slaughterhouse as the barbaric ones.

What I found striking about this story is its similarity to that of the Nazi persecution of the Jews during WWII. The people of the slaughterhouse become angry that the assumed Unitarian is not wearing the ribbon on his tail coat that lets everyone know what they are. One of the men exclaims, "Can’t you see his U-shaped side whiskers? He doesn’t have a ribbon on his tail coat or a mourning band on his hat.” Similarly, the Jews were forced to wear a yellow star as a badge on their coats. The hatred against the Jews rose after the economic collapse of the German economy post-WWI. The Jews became the target, someone to blame for their forced steps backwards in the progress of civilization. "Slaughterhouse" explains that the church and the Federalist blamed the Unitarians for the flood. They exclaim, "This is Judgment Day . . . God’s wrath is overflowing and spilling forth as floodwaters. Woe unto you, sinners! Woe unto you, wicked Unitarians who mock the Church and its wise men, and fail to listen reverentially to the word of the Lord’s anointed! Woe unto you who do not beg for God’s mercy before the altars! The terrible hour approaches of useless gnashing of teeth and feverish cursing. Your wickedness, heresies, blasphemies, your horrendous crimes have caused the plagues of the Lord to veer towards our land. The Lord of the Federation’s just hand will damn you.” (60). The Unitarians become the target the scapegoat for ecological disasters and thus violence was brought onto them. Given that this story was written in 1838 and WWII happened in the early 1940s, "Slaughterhouse" is an interesting story to read in hindsight because a pattern between disaster, scapegoats, and persecution emerges.

Fragmentary Consciousness

In chapter one, Alexander Dawson makes a note that much of Latin American history is constructed by narratives in order to create a unifier among a vast variety of histories and regions. This single identity he speaks of is used today to gain popularity to rise to presidency, in creating alliances between nations, and to join forces against imperial powers. I liked how he mentioned that there are two types of narratives. The broad, overreaching narrative that spans across large chunks of time and space and refers to concepts such as capitalism and colonialism. The other type is particular narratives. These narratives isolate a single point in time and look at its particularities. Both types of narratives are problematic. The former generalizes and decontextualizes.  The latter makes history seem rigid and precise, instead of fluid and changing before, during, and after the range of dates chosen. Dawson refers to these split visions as fragmentary history. He explains that his goal for the textbook is give multiple narratives instead of a single one. I think that it is very important to look at history in this light. There is no one side to a person, no one side to a place, and no one side to a country or a point of time. The first example he uses is that of the neighborhood Polanco and its neighbor Ecatepec in Mexico City. Polanco is a wealthy neighborhood, in contrast Ecatepec which is a poor slum. Both live next to each other, two different realities in the same geographic region, both considered Latin American, and both of them claim the same historic heroes. Their consciousness of this situation is actively being suppressed and summoned when convenient resulting in a fragmentary consciousness. I'm wondering how fragmentary history plays a part in this split consciousness and how it effects the individual's psyche.  

In my experience, the fragmentary history results in conscious and unconscious blindness. My uncle in Córdoba, Argentina lives in a "country" (gated community). Right beside this community is a villa miseria (slum). The two polar opposite worlds living right beside each other. Each one ignoring the other for decades. However, over the past few years, I've noticed tensions have risen due to resentment and economic depression. The two sides are willingly bringing the presence of each other at the front of their consciousness. The violence has risen and so has the conversation. During my visit this summer, I learned that in the 1600s there was a large population of blacks in the city. Many of the buildings that still stand today were built by blacks and indigenous peoples. Today both populations have been utterly displaced from the city. While speaking with my relatives I learned that no one knew about this! However, the most ubiquitous term used to refer to the poor, uneducated people of the city is "negro" (black). This piece of history had been completely erased from the consciousness of the people and the history of the city. Yet, it is still unconsciously present today in the language used. I believe that this duality might be a result of the fragmentary history Dawson speaks of. Thoughts? 

Pure Race and Backwardness in the Casta Paintings

In "Casta Paintings", Susan Deans-Smith is concerned about what the paintings have to say about colonial society in the 18th century. I on the other hand am more concerned about what they have to say about the events to come afterwards. What I found interesting about the casta paintings was the concept of pure race. Miranda feels threatened by the paintings, because he believes that they confirm the Spaniards assumptions that the Creole - descendants of white colonizers - are inferior to the Spaniards born in Spain. He feared the loss of power and reputation he inherently possessed under the caste system for being pure blood and white. The more white you are, the higher you are on the social hierarchy. This notion  is what provided the basis for many colonial social conceptions that were used to justify colonization and the mass killings that came with it. It was then replicated in Argentinean immigration policies, and in Hitler's goal for a pure Aryan race. We also see it internalized among rifts between people of the same race. For example, in Trinidad and Tobago, the respect you receive is contingent on how light your black skin is.

Another conception one can draw from the paintings is that of backwardness. One of the titles of the casta series is "salta atrás", meaning "a jump backwards". Backwardness implies that the group being described is stuck in the past, they aren't  "progressing" with the civilized, but rather are living like barbarians. We hear Columbus address the indigenous along these lines. He references their absence of religion, their indifference to gold, and associates their nakedness to a new born child. The latter implies that their nakedness reminded him of a state of infancy. We regard children below the age of 18 as "little people". They are human, however they are not fully human. Humans acquire their full personhood when they reach the age of maturity, 18. The same logic is used with regards to the indigenous. Their "barbaric" way of life justifies their dehumanization. And thus they are not seen as equals in the eyes of Columbus and Spaniards alike.  

It is interesting to see how these notions of purity and the civilized versus the barbaric continue to be used as tools to dehumanize and have been internalized today. Terms such as "uncivilized", "backwards", "barbaric", "them", "other" can be heard among the discourse revolving around the war on terror. The narratives that accompany them paint Muslims and the Middle East as an unknown religion and place that does not require our understanding because we consider ourselves to be more "progressive". In putting distance between us and them, makes them easier to dehumanize, stereotype, Other, and defeat.  

At the Heart of Colonialism

As it is often taught, the colonial endeavor largely revolved around the thrill of exploring the unknown. What exists beyond the European continental limits? What biodiversity and what kinds of people makes up land masses that have yet to be discovered by Europeans?  However, the thrill of exploration in itself seems to be Columbus's weakest skill and motivation. Columbus is overtly inept in the fields that  would be required for proper exploration, namely botany, biology, ethnography, and geography. Additionally, he lacks interest in exploring these fields in depth. In describing the different plants, he manages to say, "I have seen many trees very unlike our own, many of them with a host of different branches emerging from the one trunk, one branch differing from another to such a degree that the variation is astonishing" (36). He reiterates several times in his journal entries that he does not have the time, the resources, nor the incentive to explore the islands thoroughly. He reinforces these comments by repeating the main objective, gold. This would strongly suggest that the true motivations of colonization have little to do with expanding the knowledge of humankind, but rather with producing subjects of the state, expanding Christendom, building stronger militaries, and, most importantly, enriching the Motherland.

Columbus describes the indigenous as intelligent because "they quickly repeat everything said to them (30). He continues, " I believe they would readily become Christians; it appeared to me that they have no religion" (30). Columbus's definition of intelligence is that of docile submission; someone who exhibits near to zero critical spirit and repeats what they are told. In order to make the indigenous colonial subjects, Columbus suggests converting them to Christianity. Once Christian, they could be controlled through faith. Those who resist will receive the wrath of the Spanish knights as expressed in Guaman Poma's excerpts.

Columbus was also motivated in searching for resources that could increase the might of the Spanish navy, such as pine wood for building ships. At the heart of the expedition was the search for gold and riches.  It is through this strong desire for gold that the myth that is seemingly alluded to in Guaman Poma's excerpts, El Dorado, is generated. 

Introduction

My name is Michelle Pérez. I am a fourth year Human Geography major minoring in Latin American

Studies. Since both of my parents are Argentinean, I have had the privilege of visiting Argentina at least once every two years. Every visit is drastically different. Latin America is constantly in a state of change and becoming. This is why it is so difficult to pin it down. This very nature of Latin America is what interests me the most. I hope that this course will enable us to explore Latin American identity from a historical, political and social perspective.