Blog 12: The Last Post....

First of all I thought I would end saying that you are all rather fantabulous people and it has been a pleasure getting to know all of you throughout this course. Throughout this semester I have learned one thing above all others......my history teachers did not teach me anything in high school. I have had to accept the fact that when Stark or Serrata mentioned some famous figure in history, unless they are a president, I was not going to have any clue who they were talking about. After a full school year of Latin American history though, I feel as if I actually know something. Which is pretty cool. This class helped to alter my previous saying of "I hate history and all things history" to "Ya know, history isn't all that bad." My writing has definitely improved as well. Not only do I feel as if I am a faster reader/note taker, I have also become a speedier writer. This is pretty cool for me because it used to take me ages to put words down on a paper, and I would have very little time to edit. Now I have at least a day or two, and I would have more if I didn't procrastinate. Though I would slap a warning label on it about the amount of reading and writing that is required, overall, I would recommend this sequence to any newcomers.

In Response to Caitlin's Blog 11

I think it is amazing that you found this video so quickly. I think that the fact that this video is still around speaks to how important media can be. Your point concerning how this video served to open up peoples eyes rather than reinforce what the population already knew is a really valid great one.It seems crazy to me that the men who beat and murdered Bill Stewart did not bother with the camera man. I do think agree that the fact that the Somoza dictatorship was partially ended with this video is amazing, but I also think that it is a bit ironic. The video made such an impact because of the actions shown in it brutality and disregard for the law. This obviously shocked the United States, including our president. So it does not make sense to me how we can them turn around and justify the funding of the Contra's to destabilize the Sandinista government. The fact that in just a few years we went from being horrified in the face of Bill Stewart's murder to funding the attack on schools and hospitals is astounding. I wonder what the reaction would have been if the rest of the United States had been aware of what was happening?

Blog 11: Salsa Dancing

So in lieu of our salsa dancing lessons tomorrow, for which I am SO EXCITED if you could not tell, I thought I would look up some background information on the salsa. The music originated in Cuba as a blend of African drums and the Spanish guitar. The music really took off in the United States in New York City. Salsa itself refers to a specific brand of music that was developed in the 1960s and 1970s by Cuban and Puerto Rican immigrants. There is more than one genre of salsa music. These include the Cuban son montuno, guaracha, chachacha, and the mambo. Here is a quick clip for all you lovely people to watch.

I also wanted to make sure that I covered what to wear while salsa dancing because as Jacqueline pointed out, we are sadly uninformed. Here are the dos and don'ts of salsa. You want something that flows and moves. Red is a good color to fall back on. Now on ruffles I have received some conflicting information ranging from a "definitely not" to "heck yes." So I guess use your best judgement on that one. As for shoes, make sure you aren't going to break your ankles but heels are in ladies. I understand that is mainly centered on women and for that I apologize to the men. Again, flowy is best for you and apparently deep V necks are in.



and just to make us feel bad about ourselves here is what it is supposed to look like

See you all tomorrow!!!!!

In Response to Matt's Blog 10

I also found the Winn book to be somewhat enjoyable to read. He actually used real quotes and sometimes it read closer to a story of the Yarur workers rather than the Chilean Revolution. In regards to the three patrons of the mill, they cracked me up as well. I wish that it went more into detail about Jorge Yarur's mill and if it was filled with the same distrust and scared atmosphere that was found under Amador. At least Jorge knew he was not going to get away with the fake "father" image. Amador himself cracked me up as well. It was almost like he was a mob boss with all of his informers and strong-arm squads. I do not understand why he thought he was going to be able to stay in power. It also makes me wonder what would have happened in Juan had not died when he did and was faced with the problems seen in Jorge and Amador's times. Would things have been much different?

Blog 10: Many Death's

As part of our discussion in our groups today. the line "and not one death would come to each and every one, but many deaths"  from section III came up. I was trying to explain what I thought it meant and (as my group members can attest to) I was struggling hard core to make sense of my thoughts. So please bear with me as I try to figure it out here. I saw two different interpretations. The first one I came up with was that every person dies a little every day that they are not living the best quality of life they can. The line "from eight to four or nine to five" represented a work day for me and the mention of the many deaths following this line lent my to believe that it was the thoughtless repetition that was slowing killing each and every one of us. But then today when the question was posed concerning the shift from a self-centered individual to a communal society, Alex pointed out that if everyone is stuck in the repetition, then are they not moving as a group, which makes a lot of sense. I think we all agreed in class that the poem shifts from the negative, individual base to a more community one, so my previous theory is flawed. This lends me to believe that there has to be a second option for interpretation. Perhaps, instead of looking at the problem as each individual dying a little bit, it would be more appropriate to view it as the society as a whole. Every day more and more people die but they die by themselves, individually of one another. This makes more sense if the one true death mentioned later is referencing the disappearance of the of the people of Machu Pichu. So those are the two theories I have come up with. I am definitely aware that they are flawed so if anyone has any more thoughts on the subject I would love to hear them. Thanks!

In Response to Leah's Blog 9

I really wanted to respond back after reading your blog for this week because you brought up many details that I did not consider in my previous blog, and I concur that I could have definitely used some that you mentioned to expand my own. I think the point you made concerning the fact that he brought part of current day ( the book ) into the past with him is a valid one. To me it is almost like an anchor. I also found your suggestion that we are looking for a balance between our "civilized" self and our "barbaric" one interesting. In class Stephanie mentioned how the boarder between the city and The South is blurred in the story. We really do not know where one truly ends and the other begins. Perhaps this is a statement that we often find ourselves in that area of confusion one which way we should go. My conclusion is that, as you said, the past belongs in the past. We can venture back into the past to learn from it, but ultimately  we need to live our lives pushing forward into the future. Another point that comes to mind is that he went to the South to die. Technically he did not know he was going to perish there, and technically we do not know if he actually did, but the way I have interpreted the story was that he imagined the South and went there to die. So therefore, it might be appropriate to step out of the blurry area and into the past, and the "barbaric" way of life, when we are going to soon become a part of it.

Blog 9: When Someone Says Freedom....

This week I wanted to expand on one of the discussion questions for Chomsky that we did for Professor Stark. One of the first ones that he asked was to compare the definitions of freedom held by the United States and that by Cubans. So I got to thinking. My definition of freedom usually follows along with the rights laid out in our Constitution "freedom of speech", "freedom of press" and the many others that our nation was built upon. And eagles. I always think of eagles. But what I found interesting was that in the book the United States viewed freedom as specifically pertaining to foreign private enterprises. Are they going to have the freedom they need to make a profit? Or  will they freedom to trade with whomever they choose? In Cuba however, they defined freedom as no longer being dominated, constricted, and veritably ruled by a foreign country. In this case, the United States. I want to point out the irony of this. As I see it, in the most simplistic way of explaining it possible, our wonderfully free country got mad at and turned the entire world against Cuba because they desired what we had. It's like an argument that would be overheard on an elementary school playground. How can we as a country claim to be based upon people's rights and freedoms when we do not allow others to do the same? How can we start one of the most historical pieces of our time with "We the people," if we show so little compassion for any "people" who are different from us, who have a different definition of freedom? All in all I agree with a lot of your postings considering the lack of education concerning Cuba. I had next to none in high school and absolutely zero before that unless you consider learning its geographical location an education. I almost feel as if the United States has almost censored that part out of our curriculum because I am certainly not impressed. And if that is the case, I'm not sure my definition of freedom really holds up to reality.

In Response to Leah's Blog 8

Leah! I love how you were able to find these murals that relate pretty much perfectly to our class. Major props to you. I think that your analysis is pretty much spot on. I would never thought to examine the changing hues of the blues, but now that you have pointed it out, it makes a lot of sense. Looking at the watch, I would also argue that it displays the extreme length of the revolution. It looks like the numbers are fading and being wiped away. This may be analogous of how the revolution dragged on. I feel as if the soldiers, due to this length, may have lost sight of what they were fighting for, as seen in "The Underdogs." And as Dr. Stark pointed out, do we honestly know when the revolution ended? I also think that the bright red outlining Zapata's face is important to the mural. When I see red I usually think of blood and death. It may be demonstrating the bloody toll that the Revolution had upon the people of Mexico. Zapata was the face of his people after-all. As for the bright creepy guy in the corner, I came up with nothing. I researched Mexican death gods, war gods, and agriculture gods and the closest image I came up with was

This is an Aztec Saint of the Dead. It kind of reminded me of the figure in the corner but I do not think it is close enough. Sorry about that! Again, I really enjoyed your post!

Blog 8: "The South"

During the discussion in class today I was having a lot of trouble trying to figure out the message that Borges was trying to convey through his short story "The South." I think that everyone brought up really valid points. It has been driving me a bit crazy to say the least because the biggest question that has been bugging me is, why does he romanticize the past? This romanticizing begins in the first paragraph when Dalhmann is discussing his grandfather's, and which one he identifies more with. We have obviously seen and discussed the fact that he clearly felt more kinship with Francisco Flores, the one that died a gallant death in battle. On the train Borges also takes time to appreciate the changing landscape, from the city into the South.

One comment that I found particularly interesting in class today was that maybe the South only exists for Dahlmann. Or possibly that everyone has their own "South." I think that this may possibly explain the whole romanticizing thing....maybe. I would like to think that everyone has their own "South." I would argue that it is the "where you came from" part of your uniqueness. This would explain why Dahlmann's South contained the gauchos ("warriors" like his grandfather) and his families old ranch. He even put his favorite book down to go back into his roots. To me, this sends the message that we need to acknowledge our "Souths," in order to move forward but to be careful not to get stuck in them. We need to acknowledge our past, in order to move forward into the future.

So that is the current theory I have. Please tear it apart and let me know what you all think! I would love to hear more ideas and actually figure the puzzle out.

In Response to Matt's Blog 7

I totally did not see this connection and I absolutely love it. You are right that there are many parallels between Petra Herrera and Mulan. I think the coolest part about these stories is that the women were allowed to fight once they had revealed themselves to be women. I find it interesting though, that with these women (and as you said they were definitely not alone) proving themselves on the battlefield, why the gender bias still remained. For instance, In the song "I'll make a man out of you" from Mulan one of the lines sung by the male leader asks "did you send me daughters, when I asked for sons?" I think this is very profound because the armies did not even invite women to join the army. This manner of thinking was very common. I personally do not understand why the army generals would not at least invite women to try to join the army. It would increase their recruitment rates and the women would still have to prove herself. As seen by Petra and Mulan, women had the ability to make a very positive contribution to the cause. I commend the Mexican revolutionary leaders who did not follow the stereotypical recruiting pattern of the time and allowed women to take up arms.

Blog 7: The Underdog's final moments.

The ending of The Underdogs made me kind of angry. I did not really like being given the choice to decide how a story ends when I had not been given the choice to tell the rest of the story. We discussed the motives behind why the rebels were fighting in class, and whether or not Azuela believed the revolution to be inevitable. After thinking about it a lot, getting pretty frustrated with the mind-games that Azuela was playing, and giving up a few times, I have come to the conclusion that Azuela believed that the revolution was inevitable, but the rebels had the choice to decide why it would end. I don't understand why else he would give the readers the opportunity to choose what happens to Macías.

So as I see, there are only a few options for the General; he dies fighting, he hides and goes back home when the fighting moves on, or he is taken prisoner and executed. The choice that the reader makes is ultimately tied to how they believed the revolution would end. If the reader perceives Macías as dying in the battle, then to me, that implies that they believe that the only way to escape the fighting of the revolution is death. The reader may also choose to have Macías live and return home. What is interesting about this ending is whether or not he would return home in disgrace or if his people would honor him. As Grace pointed out in class, the people of his hometown no longer see him as a hero, which would imply that he would not be honored. Here, the reader gives him a way out, but ultimately believes the worst of society and that the revolution has achieved nothing with all of the deaths. Finally, Macías could be taken prisoner. This would imply that the Federal army is acting in a slightly humane manner and practicing some diplomacy by not killing him on the spot. This represents progress to me, because Macías would be respected as a human being.  I believe that Azuela gives the reader these limited choices at the end to show that no matter what, the revolution occurred, and even though the members of the rebel party  could decide what they were fighting for, they were still stuck in the revolution. These are the connections that helped me to make sense of the ending. I have no idea how close I am to being right, I highly doubt that there even is a correct answer, but I am very interested to know what you guys all thought!

In Response to Leah's Blog 6

I think your discussion on the definition of revolution and how what we have been learning in class complements it was very well presented. The last portion really caught me eye. I never have considered the "circular motion" definition of a revolution in comparison with history. But I think you made a great point that ideas often circulate around and around. I believe this lends itself to the common saying "history repeats itself." When completing the discussion questions for The Underdogs, the last one reminded me of this definition. In the case of revolutions, we often see patterns emerging. As we sort of touched on with Viva Zapata, laws will not change if the men who make them are not changed. In the case of the revolutions, often times only the head-honcho was changed. With no real changes being made, the revolution would begin again. This repetition of history I believe also fits into the third definition you gave.

Blog 6: The Next Palmares?

So I liked Viva Zapata. I know it was long and in black and white but even so, I liked it. And the movie reminded me a lot of Quilombo and the portrayal of Palmares in it. I believe that there are a lot of parallels between the two movies but the biggest one is the idea that the revolution will not die. In Quilombo a common theme is that Palmares will survive forever. This was difficult to comprehend after the slaughter of the rebels by the white plantation owners. Yet, the one survivor was able to keep Palmares alive. I believe this is because the idea of freedom, of Palmares, had spread throughout the population, and an idea is much harder to kill than a single man.

A very similar concept is seen during Viva Zapata. At the end of the movie Zapata seemed resigned to the idea that he may die. But he told his wife that the people no longer needed him. They had grown strong. They had tasted freedom. And now each one of them had the same never ending drive that he had shown previously. He was confident that the revolution would live on in each one of them. He was correct too. At the end of the film Gomez orders Zapata's white horse to be shot but it escapes. This is important because the horse represents the hope that Zapata is still alive and ready to reemerge if the people ever have a dire need for him. The people of the village remain unconvinced that Zapata is truly dead. He was so shot up that it could have been any body sitting on the plaza. These two elements combined to form an even stronger driving force behind the revolution. Therefore, just like Palmares did not die with the massacre of its people, the revolution did not end with the death of Zapata.

In Response to Elena's Blog 5

I really loved reading your post and the video of Sir Ken Robinson. I haven't seen that one but he is one of my favorite speakers and I almost always agree with what he says. Standardized testing is a bit of a sore subject of mine. In a Diversity of Education class I am taking this semester I had to write up my philosophy on education. I thought it would be beyond hard because, as a freshman who just declared at the end of last semester, how was I supposed to know how I wanted to teach my future students. To tell you the truth, it was easy. Almost too easy. And its because I realized how strongly I dislike No Child Left Behind and Standardized Testing. These standardized tests were developed out of World War I to see what soldiers had the potential to become military officers. It is absolutely ridiculous that they have moved into the school system. This video is one of my personal favorites talking about the subject of standardized testing.

I hate how my future is decided on an A or F. Why is my worth determined by that? As Elena stated, all of us obviously have gotten the marks. My question is how much did you have to give up to get them? and in the end, how much of the information you were tested on do you actually remember?

I don't want to just go on a rant, and I know I am dangerously approaching one. My main point is that a test cannot show your worth, so why are we letting them. My freshman and sophomore years of high school we are required to take both World History and US History. I passed both easily with an A. On the plan tests and MEAP I killed it on the social studies section. But when Professor Stark asks in class if I have heard about the Alamo, I got nothin'. Or how about the geography of European nations...Nope. And the one I know you are all in the same boat with me as, the US occupation of the Dominican Republic which we have absolutely never heard of. So honestly, how worth my time was staying up late, missing time with my family, missing community events, missing the real world, to memorize some facts that I am never going to remember just so I can get into college and do it again?
I propose a shift in the way schools are run. We need to focus more on letting students carve their own paths and learn what they want to learn. In college we get this opportunity a bit more than in high school. But we are still bombarded with gen-eds that may not have anything to do with our future plans. I took Latin American Civilizations and Literature because I wanted to. And Surprise! I can remember a lot more of what I have learned in this class than many of my other ones. Thank you Elena for posting what you did. I think it's an awesome subject to look into, read, and hear about.

Blog 5: Lessons from J.K Rowling

Every summer I take the time to reread the Harry Potter series. It is a bit of an obsession and those books are rather fantastic beach reading material. This week when we were debating over Sarmiento and José Martí I had a kind of epiphany on how many of the issues we have seen strike developing Latin America are also at the core of Wizard society.

One of the first ones that popped into my head is the similarity between Martí's call for a raceless nation and the controversy between pure-blood and wizards. In the series, Voldemort's main desire is ridding the world of muggles and those who are not pure of blood. He believes that pure-bloods are superior and therefore they are the only ones who deserve to use magic. He even goes on to say that those who cannot trace their lineage back to a line of pure blood wizards must have stolen the magic, especially those wizards whose parents are muggles. I find this to be similar to the frame of mind of the white elites in 19th century Latin America. They believed themselves superior to the indigenous due to their lineage and European backgrounds and therefore manipulated the lower classes. Martí and Dumbledore have very similar mindsets. They are both under the impression that the best society is one created without boundaries based upon race or wizard blood lines.

A second tie I found was the use of propaganda in the Harry Potter series. Newspaper readings are huge in the wizarding world. The main newspaper, "The Daily Prophet" is read widely by the population and is one of the only sources of information for most of them. In class Professor Stark brought up the point that in the past and even now, we know very little of what is going on in the world. We know the simple statistics that the news and papers give us and that is all. In the Spanish/American/Cuban war propaganda was a very large component. The same is seen in the battle between Voldemort and his death eaters and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. One example from the series that stands out to me is when Mrs. Weasley turned on Hermione because she believed that Hermione was dating and cheating on Harry. There was no truth at all to this statement and the newspaper was targeting Harry because he had somehow made it into the Triwizard Tournament. It shows how easily people can be manipulated. In the final books "The Daily Prophet" becomes controlled by the Wizard Ministry. I find this to be very similar to the government censoring seen in the United States when the president was accused of cowardice.

Those are the main two I found but if you guys think of any more let me know! I attached a mashup for the trailers of all eight movies in case anyone was lost on who was who or anything. Or if you just feel the need to take a break.  Good luck finishing up your papers!

In response to Gabbie's Blog 4

I love how you made the link between The Great Gatsby and Cecilia Valdés. I think the most prominent connection you made was between Cecilia and Daisy. As you mentioned, Daisy is always the center of attention, always accompanied by some high standing man, and her actions guide those of others which is very similar to Cecilia. Daisy is also very attracted to wealth. In the story she finds great pleasure from the imported silk t-shirts that Gatsby showers her with and at the conclusion of the story, she betrays Gatsby in favor of the high-class and secure life-style that her not-as-loving husband Tom can provide. I find this to be very similar to Cecilia’s tendency to be focused only on the white elites. She has made it clear that her ultimate goal is to marry amongst the elite class and that she will not settle for any mulattos, despite the fact that she is one herself. This overbearing obsession with the rich and wealthy is seen in both ladies. While Daisy cast off Gatsby, Cecilia overlooks Pimienta. Their lifestyles are destructive to those around them, and yet they both continue.

Blog 4: HalfBreeds

I’d like to focus on a specific line from the fifth chapter of Cecilia Valdes that truly stuck out to me. At the very bottom of page thirty-five, Cecilia address her friends by calling her “my dear little halfbreed.” When I hear the word halfbreed used in such a way, I immediately think of an animal or mystical creature like a centaur. It is obviously used in a condescending fashion coming from Cecilia’s mouth. What threw me for a loop was that Cecilia (who is a mulatto) used it to reference another mulatto. It is almost as if she finds herself to be above her mulatto heritage and because of this, I find the line to be one of the most important in the section that we read.

In class we discussed how Cecilia is portrayed in a very sexual manner even from a young age. As she gets older, the more sexual references continue but the author also makes an effort to portray her almost as a bimbo. Truly, the only reason she is as well known as she is, is due to her beauty. The image she portrays of a mulatto is very negative and the above comment that she makes toward her friend further destroys any semblance of decency. Her reference to a half breed, in my opinion, demonstrates the desire of mulattos to forget their background and rise to the status of the white elites. The desire is so strong, that they are willing to turn on one another in order to achieve that goal. This is also seen through the deliberate slighting of Pimienta by Cecilia in favor of Leonardo. Due to the unpleasant and self-centered nature of Cecilia, I believe that the author is disgusted by this practice. He would prefer that all remain in their social class; that whites stay with whites, and half breeds stay with half breeds.

In Response to Leah's Blog 3

I really love how you took the initiative to look up more about the instruments. I'm also a very big fan of music (I play the viola) and enjoyed reading about the vihuela. The transformation of the instrument is pretty awesome to read about and the video of the guy playing blew my mind. He was strumming so quickly!

When reading this passage it also caught my eyes because to me it displayed how across the world and time periods, people have always found freedom in writing music. Music also encompasses some of the characteristics of the formation of a nation. A simple line that demonstrated this to me was "The peasants have their own songs." (pg. 63) This serves also to show that they have their own way of life. They have their own culture that even further separates them from the others. This is the culture that Sarmiento needs to preserve if he desires Argentina to be unique from other nations.The music also served to create a community. Singing a chorus, or hearing the history of one's nation in a song, is something that cause people to gather and unite. I thought it was really interesting to see these two characteristics of a nation are brought to life through music.

Blog 3: The Color Red

So I’d like to begin by saying that I finally figured out how to change the background of my blog. I have been confused for a while now and major props to all of you who found out how in the first two seconds after making yours.

Colors have been used in many other literary works as symbols. I have always found this strategy to be fascinating because description of color is such a staple of writing in the first place and it is interesting to see when authors use it to their advantage. One of my favorite examples is the green light from The Great Gatsby. If you are unfamiliar with the book, a very summarized version is that a man named Gatsby lives across a small stretch of water from his old sweetheart Daisy who is now married. At the end of Daisy’s dock there is a green light that is constantly blinking and visible from Gatsby’s house. To Gatsby the light represents hope that one day they will be reunited. He reaches toward it in the introduction of the story (as well as in the movie) because it serves almost as a guide to Daisy. One the whole, the light also represents the American dream because that is what Daisy is to Gatsby. This is but one example of many that authors have used to make their point. I bring colors up because I saw a similar use in “The Slaughter House.”

One of the comments that Stark made during his lecture was that Rosa's supporters wore red as a way of displaying their support. This caught my attention because of the subtle dominance of red within Echeverría's short story. My question is whether or not he used the color symbolically as a literary technique or if it is a coincidence?

I personally believe that the constant descriptions of blood at the slaughterhouse has another purpose beyond showing how uncivilized the Federalists are. Red often symbolizes anger, death, blood, aggression, violence, and impurities. The slaughter house seems to be one of the places in which the Restorer (Rosa) has the most power. It seems to fit in perfectly that his power lies in a place where the most red would be found for the people have made the color and the Restorer into one entity. Therefore, when Echeverría describes the blood in the streets, the “long streams of blood spurting from every artery” of the child’s severed trunk, and that of the death of the bull, he is putting all the blame on the Restorer. It serves to make his point that where the Restorer reigns, only death and violence with prevail.