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.