The documentary, South of the Border, informs its viewers about the conflict between South American leaders and the institutions of the United States, mainly the government and media. The events shown and narrated through the film may be interpreted with the use of sociological theories, which is the main purpose of this film analysis. This paper aims to explain the causes of the realities presented through concepts and theories from the field of Sociology. Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views. The film opens with a news program reporting Chávez’s consumption of coca and linking it to the alleged poor governance of Venezuela. He was called a dictator, together with Morales, who was not directly mentioned in the segment but was simply referred to as “the dictator from Bolivia” who supplied him with ... ... middle of paper ... ...interrelated through sociological concepts. The capitalists (US) wanted to maintain their power over the proletariat (South America) because of its resources (petroleum, natural gas). In this struggle for power, social institutions (government, media) looked for ways to influence people to serve their interests. Being aware of the inequality among them, the South Americans were prompted to form a social movement towards change through reforms and the exercise of democracy. Works Cited Inequality. (n.d.). Merriam-Webster.com. Accessed March 2, 2014, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inequality Kinloch, G. C. (1989). Society as power: an introductory sociology. NJ: Prentice Hall. Shaefer, R. (2013). Sociology in Modules (2nd ed). NY: McGraw-Hill. Synopsis. (n.d.). Accessed on March 1, 2014, from http://www.southoftheborderdoc.com/synopsis/
This paper will be exploring the book The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders. This book focuses upon the early 1800 to the 1900 and explores the development of South American political system as well expresses some issues that some Latino counties had with Europe and North America. Thus, Sanders focus is on how Latin America political system changes throughout this certain time and how does the surrounding countries have an effect as well on Latin political system. Therefore, the previous statement leads into some insight on what the thesis of the book is. Sanders thesis is, “Latin American’s believed they represented the future because they had adopted Republicanism and democracy while Europe was in the past dealing with monarchs
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Nevertheless, the movie undoubtedly mirrors many of the current socio-political time in which the film was made. The title itself refers to a famous quotation from the Nobel Prize-winning author Mario Vargas Llosa, who once referred to Mexico's ruling party, the PRI, as a "camouflaged dictatorship," thereby making it "the perfect dictatorship." In this way, the movie is directly acknowledging its relevance to modern Mexico and its politics and is clearly very self-aware. The plot itself was based on the real life perceived Televisa controversy during the 2012 Mexican presidential election, in which Mexican citizens believe that the media was unfairly showing a preference for the PRI candidate, Enrique Peña Nieto. While it could be argued that the movie takes this idea of favoring one candidate over another to extreme lengths (although perhaps it isn’t showing anything unduly unrealistic – there’s no real way to know) and hyperbolizes the effect of the media in Mexican politics, there is clearly a strong element of truth and reality there. The movie would not have had nearly the same effect if it was not at least somewhat grounded in reality. And I think that, while the media does not have absolute and final control over politics, they do to a very large and important extent and this extends far beyond the movie alone, especially in today’s age of fake
Captivation or being restrained due to certain circumstances that prevents free choice is usually one of many great reasons to form revolutionary ideas. To get from captivation to liberation, one must consider change, a major component needed in order to gain freedom after enslavement. Latin America, in the eighteen hundreds, sought the need for change due to the resentment of the Spanish rule. Simon Bolivar, the revolutionary leader of Latin America, will seek independence from Spain. It was in Jamaica where Bolivar wrote a letter known as the “Jamaican Letter”, one of Bolivar’s greatest proposals. The letter emphasizes his thoughts and meanings of the revolution while envisioning a variety of governmental structures, of the New World, that could one day be recognized.
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
The film, "Couple in the Cage", represents how indigenous people were taken around the United States like circus acts. Oboler and Flores had similar ideas about what it means to be Hispanic. The "Monroe Doctrine" proved Latinos have been seen as dependents in the United States since the beginning. Finally, Joseph and Roseberry investigated the term “culture” in their pieces. This essay will explore how the film “Couple in the Cage” illustrates concepts written by Flores, Oboler, Monroe, Joseph, and Roseberry about to Latinos in the United States. (90)
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
White, Robert E. 2013. "After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba". The New
Chavez is one of the greatest Civil Rights activists of times. As a child he watched workers be mistreated and misused. He follows King and Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence and lives by their standards. He also believes that the highest form of freedom carries with it the greatest measure of
The historian Ronn Pineo wrote “Beginning in the 1980s nearly all of Latin America began to take part in a great experiment, the adoption of capitalist free market economic policies.” (1) This great experiment began with the promotion of democracy and free market that promised a better future for Latin America. Neoliberalism, the economic ideology that promotes free-market capitalism, laid the foundation for many of the US military interventions and economic policies that caused a dramatic transformation of Latin America. This promise of a “democratic” government came from a policy initiative labeled as polyarchy. Polyarchy is “ a system in which a small group governs and mass participation in decision making is limited to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed by competing elites” (Lecture: Polyarchy and Resistance). It, however, was a sales pitch to continue Latin America’s subordinate position in to the global market. As a result, much of Latin America, by the late 1980 through the early 1990s, transitioned into this form of “democracy”. Consequently, Latin America suffered and still suffers today from underdevelopment, high levels of socioeconomic inequality, and immigration. Globalization of capital, off-shore production, and new technologies have created structural barriers and have
In this sense, the film tests the resiliency of good human nature. The modern world is becoming increasingly set in its extremes, as the lifestyle of the poor vastly contrasts that of the wealthy. The implementation of NAFTA reflects this movement toward separation, despite the fact that it was intended to boost trade between regions and create more prosperity on both sides of the United States-Mexico border. The Mexican elites saw it as their salvation. Others saw it as “ a death sentence.” The Chiapas region itself exemplifies this gap, as well. The region was split between the relatively prosperous west, which was fertile and characterized by commercial development, and the poor, subsistence-oriented east. It was not by accident that the Zapatista movement began in Chiapas as the struggle between ranchers, landowners, and subsistence farmers was intensified by NAFTA.
Hugo Chavez was a powerful and positive force in addressing social issues, however, his singular focus on social issues at the expense of other matters of the country left the Venezuelan economy in tatters. In 1998, 50.4% of the Venezuelan population was living below the poverty line, where as in 2006 the numbers dropped to 36.3% (Chavez leaves). Although he aggressively confronted the issue of poverty in Venezuela, many other problems were worsened. Some Chavez critics say he used the state oil company like a piggy bank for projects: funding homes, and healthcare while neglecting oil infrastructure and production. Without growth in the oil ind...
As a result, with the passing of the years Chavez created an atmosphere of division, violence and unrest within the population. Thus, created a marked difference between the supporters and opponents of his policies, a situation that President Hugo Chavez took advantage of for his own purposes, deploying a communist regime disguised as a socialist. In other words, Chavez tricked Venezuela’s people, offering the establishment of a socialism that was nothing more than a dictatorship adapted to their own purposes, becoming the most recognized leader of the left worldwide. Throughout the fourteen years that he remained in power, Chávez followed a strategy of introducing a socialist government in Venezuela in stages. According to Enrique Standish in the article titled “Venezuela Finally Turns Communist” it happened in four stages.
LaFeber, Walter. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. New York: W.W. Norton, 1984. Print.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews