Week Five

[Pardon the tardiness: my original response got lost before I was to upload it due to an app malfunction on my device…. So here we go: Week Five response round two.]

I found the concept of the Caudillo very interesting. I was intrigued by the fact that the Caudillos emerged by themselves out of the public. It’s interesting to me how forms of leadership come about. I’m curious to know to what extent the culture of Latin America at the time had to do with the birth of the Caudillos and, if the culture had been different, what kind of leadership would have emerged. I’m interested to look at how a culture’s values are expressed in the type of leadership(s) that takes hold.

I found the story of the Slaughterhouse well written and engaging as a story. It was curious to note the clear use of Catholic/Christian symbolism used throughout and the vocalized divide and animosity between the Unitarians and Federalists. The Unitarians were going for a centralized government operating out of Buenos Aires to rule over all of Argentina whereas the Federalists pushed for a federation between independent/semi-autonomous provinces within the country. Personally, I would have taken the side of the Federalists for I think this way of governing works better (as I outline below).

I wonder what the feelings of the people were with living in partnership with Caudillos – if people ever feared their Caudillo, what they thought of their actions, and if they ever wanted to shift their alliances to a different Caudillo. I wonder what happened if someone didn’t like their Caudillo any longer? Were they free to leave and support a new one? I imagine it would have been rather difficult to do this as the networks that Caudillos ‘ruled’ over were tight-knit communities of both real and fictive kin type personal relationships. To change Caudillos sounds like it would have meant extracting oneself from family, friends, relatives, and close alliances – something not easily done or desirable.

It sounds like Caudillos worked better than many governments today because there seemed to have been much dialogue between the people and their Caudillo. The Caudillo would have been nothing without their supporters and likewise the people would not (in most cases) have their interests taken to heart and requests or needs attempted to be fulfilled without their Caudillo (as the government wasn’t taking care of them). I think that smaller communities work better than large ones (large meaning countries). It’s so hard to hear the voices of your citizens if you have thousands upon thousands, let alone millions to take care of and represent! Politics seemed to have been less tumultuous in villages and small communities because everyone’s voice could be heard and everyone was faced with the consequences for their actions, meaning they likely took more responsibility for what they did. I do recognize, however, the intense suffering that was caused by the Caudillos – namely when conflicts arose and violence was the means of settling disputes as well as generating revenue, something I definitely don’t agree with.

It looks like Caudillos were good and bad at the same time. As usual, it depended on your perspective or situation. It came down to whether you were the one protected or the one being attacked by a Caudillo. Caudillos obviously were more concerned with the needs and desires of their followers than the elites in the government were back in Buenos Aires. So on the one hand, I can see the Caudillos as better leaders and protectors of the people than the government, yet on the other hand the Caudillos killed and stole from many.

As a closing not, it’s interesting to me to see which Caudillos genuinely cared about the well-being of their supporters and which ones were really assuming on this leadership position for the power and money.