[Xantar]

Well, BreakABone asked me for some writing samples for this topic (and apparently some people actually want to know what my school writing is like).

These were both written for my history class "Modern Latin America." The writing assignments in that class are 2 page journal entries every other week. They aren't really essays in the conventional sense. They aren't graded on the basis of writing style or how well an argument is developed. They are graded more on the ideas they present.

These are not my best work (I write them the day before they are due). Unfortunately, the paper that I consider to be my finest work thus far is 15 pages long, so I won't be printing it here. If anybody is interested in seeing what real college papers are like, I'll get it to them somehow (just don't try to turn it in for school. For a multitude of reasons, it'll be painfully apparent that it's not your own).

All that said, I got an A for both of these journal entries.

The Indian Identity Within
Journal Entry #4

The Indians of Latin America are in the midst of a sort of cultural awakening. The signs are as innocuous as a Quichua street theater in Ecuador or as full-blown and political as the research by Mayan linguists and social scientists of Guatemala. What these movements all have in common is a sense that Indians are now reaffirming their ethnic and cultural identity, saving it from being destroyed by ladinizacion. Kay Warren criticized this purpose in Guatemala specifically, saying that it necessarily means the creation of a single pan-Mayan identity tied to a particular time rather than acknowledging that ethnic identity is the product of economics, generations and religion (Warren quoted by Stephan 1992). Warren’s criticism can be generalized to the rest of the Indian population in Latin America—there is no single set of core beliefs and customs that characterizes a person as "Indian." Yet, one must be careful of the implications of this statement. Does Warren’s criticism mean that "Indianness" is a sliding scale with Indians at one end and ladinos at the other with no cut-off point to mark the difference? Does it mean, in effect, that there is no such thing as an Indian? The Mayan audience that Warren delivered her lectures to would probably not think so, and because of her continued use of the word "Mayan" to categorize people, it seems that Warren herself also believes that there is such a thing as a Mayan distinct from the rest. But then how can some people be called "Indian" while others are not?

An answer came to me during the class’s discussion with Juan, the Quechua Indian leader. Juan believed that the key to success for Indians was education. When I asked him how he would react to the change that would inevitably occur when he received a higher education, he responded that he would continue to wear his traditional clothing no matter how much Western learning he absorbed. There are some who would call Juan naïve for believing that he could retain his essential Indianness in the face of all the new knowledge he would gain, but what struck me was not his words but his tone and expression as he spoke. It became immediately clear to me that Juan would remain an Indian because he wanted to remain and Indian and believed that he would always be an Indian. He could learn to speak English and use modern technology, but in the end, he would still consider himself an Indian. The class by and large identified him as an Indian, but it was not because of his manner of dress and language—there are non-Indians who wear home-made clothes and speak Spanish. Rather, it was Juan’s declaration of himself as an Indian that immediately caused the class to identify and treat him as such.

Ethnic identity is a largely individual creation. Homogeneous societies are rare in the world, and they are especially rare in Latin America after centuries of several races existing together on the same continent. What is undeniable is that even after all this time, individuals still identify themselves with a particular culture. And for most, that is enough.

Cry Cultural Imperialism Or Cry Wolf?
Journal Entry #6

The art of Latin America is highly politicized stuff and is often dedicated to the creation of an image that its people can relate to. Whether they are depicting the life of the ordinary or down-trodden or criticizing governments, the artists of Latin America and the Caribbean are attempting to depict a certain reality that is their own. This consciousness of politics and national identity also seems to be uniquely Latin American. Nobody thinks of Pablo Picasso as creating a new Spanish vision of reality. Peter Winn points out that intellectuals all over the Latin American continent share the concerns of Puerto Rican writer Luis Rafael Sanchez: that "cultural imperialism" is invading from the United States and changing the culture already existing in Latin America. I question the validity of these concerns, however, for two reasons: it does not seem likely that the United States can profoundly influence Latin American culture as much as people like Sanchez seem to believe, and in any case, an injection from the outside is not necessarily a bad thing.

Having never been to Latin America, I cannot offer direct evidence to support my theory. I do think, however, that the case of the United States can offer some insight. Obviously, the various forms of music, art and dance brought over by immigrants has not completely taken over the dominant culture. But more important is the way immigrants themselves adapt to the culture that the U.S. pushes on them. They do this by taking the ways of the mainstream culture and giving them a unique flavor that is distinct. It is not an easy process, to be sure, especially when popular groups want the immigrants to be assimilated. Nonetheless, immigrants in the United States are usually able to declare their heritage and have it acknowledged by everyone else. It is simply not possible to assimilate them completely, and if that is so, why should there be any fear that the Latin American continent will lose its identity?

The example of the United States is also salient because of its diversity. The diversity that exists in Latin America is of a different sort than that which exists in the United States, but Latin American culture is still built on the extreme diversity of its people just as it is in the United States. Latin American culture today can hardly be called the Latin American culture of a five hundred years ago when Native Americans were the only humans on the continent. Modern Latin American culture isn’t even the same as that which existed thirty years ago. What exactly, then, is the essential Latin American culture that Sanchez fears may be lost to U.S. cultural imperialism? If it is the one founded on diversity that has been in constant change since the arrival of the Europeans, then should it not continue to change?

This is not to say that Latin Americans should embrace the culture seeping in from the United States or even embrace change. It is only to say that Latin America is a continent in flux, and changes will happen. Rather than be concerned about the influence of the United States on Latin American culture, one should recognize that Latin America will always remain distinct from the United States whatever images its people identify with.