In his Seven Interpretive Essays on Peruvian Reality, José Carlos Mariátegui claims to provide a treatment of the socio-economic questions of Peru that is thoroughly grounded in historical materialism. What would Walter Benjamin have to say about this in light of his Theses on The Philosophy of History? Would he applaud Mariátegui’s historical materialism, critique it, or criticize him for having engaged in historicism and the building of a universal history? Your paper should reconstruct Mariátegui’s understanding of historical materialism and its usefulness for understanding the Peruvian reality before turning to what Benjamin would have to say about his work. [This question might be modified to be a conversation between Mariátegui and Césaire. How do these two theorists share a common approach to history? It might also be modified to be a conversation between Césaire and Benjamin. What would Benjamin say about Césaire’s discussion of colonialism and his understanding of history? In both cases, you want to make clear why it is interesting to place the two theorists in conversation.]
You are to read:” The Panama Invasion Revisited: Lessons for the the Use of Force in the Post Cold War Era” and the write a critique of the argument.
In a Critique you need to evaluate an argument. In this process you will need to:
1-Provide a brief history of the authors argument.
2-Examine the evidence that is used to support the argument.
3- And lastly, argue if you think the argument is accurate or not. This is the most important part of the process. In this section you will use specific evidence supplied by the author and say if you feel that the evidence actually supports the argument that the author is making.
Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!