Blog 12: Reflection on the Semester

Hi everyone!

Wow, I can't believe this class and my first year of college are coming to an end! Like Professor Serrata suggested, I thought I would write this final blog entry about my favorite parts of this semester.

One of my favorite days hands-down was the one day we didn't do any classwork, and instead learned to dance! Learning to dance the merengue, bachata, and salsa was really fun! Even though normally dancing is completely out of my comfort zone (I went to two dances total in high school, one of which was prom), I really enjoyed that day. The music was great, our instructors were really nice, and Taylor and I were rockin’ dance partners. Also, the experience was a great stress-reliever, as it kept my mind off the three papers that I had to write that week.

Another experience that I really enjoyed was our trip to Chicago. Lunch was absolutely delicious (I think that this summer I’m going to have to make it a priority to go down to Mexican Town in Detroit to get some more authentic food), but I wished we had spent more time in the museum. Some of the art was really beautiful, especially the painting of La Adelita (shown above), who my group and I actually talk about in our final project! I would have liked to have spent more time in the sections that our guide first talked about; I didn’t realize that everyone was getting ready to leave until I came out of the exhibit about Mexico and the Jewish Diaspora.

However, I had plenty of time in the exhibit of the woman who painted this piece. All of her work freaked me out a bit. (Like seriously, is that some kind of dementor-cat??)

Other parts of this class that I really enjoyed include: reading The Underdogs, Cecilia Valdés, and any other fictional works. I love reading fiction for fun, and so reading these works didn’t seem much like work. Perhaps this summer I’ll finish reading Cecilia Valdés, even though I already know how it ends!

Lastly, I really enjoyed certain aspects of making our final project about folk songs of the Mexican Revolution. Editing was a lot of fun, and so was finding lots of cool old photos taken during the time period to use. What I loved most was the music; I am completely obsessed with the song “La Adelita”:

I hope you all have enjoyed this class as much as I have, and that you have a good summer!

My Response to Jacqueline's : "Blog 11: Another September 11th"

This is a very interesting blog post! It’s interesting to note, though, that the significance of the date September 11 differs for the 1973 events and the events of 2001. It has been speculated that the terrorists of the 2001 attacks chose September 11 because of the symbolism of the date: 9/11911. 911 is the number that we call in America to contact the police when there is an emergency, and thus the terrorists might have chosen this date to symbolically enhance the terror of the attack. In Chile, the fact that the overthrow of Allende happened on a September 11 was pretty random; it was just by chance that the referendum was to be held on September 12, so Allende had to be overthrown before then. (Also, this date could not have been symbolic beforehand for the same reason as the 2001 attack, because the emergency number in Chile was not 911, plus, as in Spanish-speaking countries, the date would be written 11/9.) Anyway, just thought I’d mention this! There’s no doubt that now the date September 11 is equally symbolic for Chileans and Americans, but I just thought that the difference in the symbolism of the date for the different attackers was interesting.

http://latinamericancivhon280.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-11-another-september-11th.html?showComment=1396206795376#c3769950741818609249

Blog 11: Pablo Neruda and "The Heights of Macchu Picchu"

For this entry, I wanted to elaborate on what Taylor and I came up with in class on Monday, our connection between “The Heights of Macchu Picchu” and Communism. As Neruda was a Communist, perhaps this connection was intentional on his part. If not, I still think that it is an interesting similarity between this poem and the ideals of Communism.

In verses X through XII, Neruda laments the plight of the slaves, servants, and workers who suffered in order to make Macchu Picchu the extraordinary place that it was:

          
            Return to me the slave you buried!

            Shake the suffering people’s hard bread

            from these lands, show me the servants’

            clothes and their windows.

He also says:

           

            Macchu Picchu, did you place

            stone on stone, and, at the base, rags?

            Coal on top of coal, and tears at the bottom?

            Fire atop gold, and, trembling in it, the giant red

            raindrop of blood?

These sections basically suggest that Macchu Picchu was built upon the blood and tears of the lower classes that actually built Macchu Picchu and served the upper classes, and in return suffered from hunger and were inadequately clothed.

The fact that these people worked hard to maintain the upper classes’ standards of living and received nothing but suffering in return can be related to Communism. In Communism, the idea is that it is the large working class that keeps the economy running, but the workers benefit very little from their hard work, earning small wages while the business owners make huge profits. In a way, then, the business owners can be seen as similar to the elites in Macchu Picchu. They exploit the workers, just like the elites exploited the lower classes and caused their suffering in order to live extravagant lives. In turn, the workers suffer like the lower classes did because they earn very little and thus have very little.

My Response to Matt's "Blog number 10: The Yarur Legacy"

What Matt said:

"This week I want to talk specifically about the Peter Winn book we are reading for prof. Stark's discussion questions. I have been doing my questions lately, and I am liking this book significantly more than the others this year so far, so I would like to talk about why that is for this week's blog. I am going to talk specifically about the 3 Yarur leaders that the book describes; Jorge, Juan, and Amador and their leadership. I personally found their systems and the shifts between them to be comical. The father Juan was the man who set up the company, and he did so during pretty bad times, with a lot of outside support. He set up a very loose system where he was seen as a father figure, walking among his men, and being friendly with not only the employees, but their families as well. He took advantage of his incredible skill in business as well as his charismatic character. The people liked him, and were happy to work for the successful company during hard times. But then he died, and his most successful son took over the reigns for the company. This shift to me was the funny one, as he took everything his father had put together, and threw it out the window. The Taylor system was implied in the factory, half the workers laid off, while production doubled. Jorge focused completely on productivity and efficiency of the factory, and the factory benefited in exchanged for unhappy workers. He created a gap between the workers and leaders of the factory, where his father had worked hard to prevent that very thing. This is one of those scenarios where one could imagine the father rolling in his grave with what his son was doing. But at the same time, he was a businessman, so perhaps not so much, it is just difficult to tell whether this was a move that would have been supported or not. It is also difficult to choose whether the boost in production was worth the decrease in worker happiness. I for one think so, but then again, ultimately the workers take over, so who knows. But then Amador takes over from his brother, and he tried to essentially return to his father's ways while retaining the productivity. He tried to return to the paternal image, but he lacks the charisma of his father, and the workers hated him. He kept the productivity high through further worsening the working conditions, to the point where a 3 minute bathroom break got the worker yelled at. The people increased their dislike for management, and eventually take the factory.

In a single generation, the Yarur leaders lost all the support of the workers, and completely revamped the system of the workers. It is just funny and strange to me that brothers had such different ideas from one anther and their father as well."

My response:

"I also thought that the shifts of leadership between Juan, Jorge, and Amador were interesting. I found Juan and Amador’s paternalism to be kind of creepy—who wants their boss to act like a father figure, when he is really just trying to manipulate you to keep you loyal? I was actually pretty surprised when Amador got control over the mill from Jorge; in these kinds of cases, I usually expect the “most capitalist” system to be the one that prevails. Jorge did manage to increase productivity and efficiency (but, like you said, in exchange for the workers hating him), and it was strange that Amador would want to reverse some of the changes that Jorge had made."

(http://mattsinclair17.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-number-10-yarur-legacy.html?showComment=1395592270033#c5154593644147211520)

Blog #10: A Mural and Two Books

Hey everybody! Since today we looked at a bunch of José Guadalupe Posada's work, I thought I would share this picture of the mural that my friend created last year for her final AP Spanish project. (My project was an Apples to Apples game in Spanish, in case you were wondering J) Obviously, the black and white parts of this image are a recreation of Posada’s “La Calavera Catrina,” and my friend added in color where she saw fit!

Since I finished Weavers of Revolution yesterday, I thought I would do a sort of book review of Aviva Chomsky’s A History of the Cuban Revolution and Peter Winn’s Weavers of Revolution (I can’t believe I read two full books in less than two weeks!). I would have to say that I enjoyed reading Weavers more than A History. My main complaint of Chomsky’s book is that she uses quotes way too much. Not only does she use quotes from actual Cubans or other historical figures relevant to the Cuban Revolution (which is fine), but she also quotes other historians and authors a lot. Especially when these quotes are up to a paragraph long, they get really annoying. (And now I understand why when you’re writing an academic paper, you shouldn’t use quotes to make your points—saying it in your own words not only demonstrates your understanding, but as a reader it’s less annoying as well.) Chomsky was pretty interesting, but I found the more focused topic of the Yarur workers in Winn’s book to be more interesting.

To me, once I got into the meat of Weavers, it read like a political/social drama. One of my favorite quotes was:

        

           “I told you that this could not be,” Allende fumed.

“What would you say to two thousand workers who are all on their feet demanding socialization…demanding that the president fulfill his promises,” Varas replied. “What would you say? ‘No, that you can’t.’ They would throw me out of there feet first.”

I loved it when parts like this read like a novel, and I think that the story of the Yarur workers would make a great film. Winn’s writing really made me empathize with the workers, and when all of their accomplishments (spoiler alert?) were thrown out the window in one chapter when Allende was overthrown, I actually felt kind of depressed.

Anyway, these are my thoughts on these books. I’m glad that we get to watch a documentary on Chile for Professor Serrata’s part of the class. I watched it today, and it kind of tied up the loose ends that were left at the end of Weavers. Pinochet doesn’t stay in power forever; eventually democracy returns to Chile!

My Response to Elena's: "Blog #9- Balthazar and the Biblical Magi"

What Elena said: 

"While reading Balthazar's Prodigious Afternoon, I remembered that Balthazar was the name of one of the three biblical magi. Although there are no apparent or specific biblical allusions within this text, there is a definite connection that can be created between the Balthazar in this story and the Balthazar of the bible. 

The Biblical Magi, or The Three Wise Men, visit Jesus when he is born and bring gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh. Often in nativity scenes, the three wise men are depicted. There is symbolism behind what the three wise men give Jesus. The gold symbolizes his kingship or his royal status, the frankincense symbolizes his divine status or priestly role and the myrrh was given to represent that he too would die one day. The symbolism behind these three gifts has long been debated but these seem to be rather common interpretations. 

Balthazar in Balthazar's Prodigious Afternoon bears a gift just as The Three Wise Men do. Initially the cage was not meant to be a gift but rather a consumer good. However, Balthazar offers the gift to Montiel's son, Pepe, because it would hurt his reputation. The symbol of the cage differs however from the symbols of the three gifts of the Three Wise Men. Within this story, the cage is meant to symbolize the oppression of the poor. It has a rather negative connotation or symbolic meaning rather than positive as the three gifts are."

My response:

"What interesting comparisons! However, while reading “Balthazar’s Prodigious Afternoon,” I didn’t think that Balthazar gave the cage to Pepe as a gift because otherwise his reputation would be hurt (or do you mean it would hurt Montiel’s reputation?), but rather because he was generous and genuinely wanted Pepe to stop being so upset. He didn’t have a problem giving away the cage for free because he wasn’t greedy; in the beginning of the story, he didn't want more than twenty pesos for it, let alone sixty. Anyway, if Balthazar gave this gift because he was generous, then I think it fits your analogy better: the three wise men were simply generous as well."

(http://elenalatinamerica.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-9-balthazar-and-biblical-magi.html?showComment=1395006461015)

Blog 9: Dreams, Reality, and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

Earlier this week, for the short essay we wrote about Borges’s “The South,” I wrote about how I thought that Borges’s message was that the imagination is incredibly powerful, that there is more than one “reality,” and that our perceptions of what is “real” and what are dreams and imagination are not as simple as we might think. This was based off my belief that in the story, Dahlmann imagined his trip to the south as a way to escape from his suffering as he was dying in the sanitarium. This imagined reality might not be “real,” but it was plenty real for the narrator.

Anyway, when I was writing this short response, it made me think of the conversation that occurs between Harry and Dumbledore in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. After Voldemort almost kills Harry and Harry is temporarily in a sort of limbo between life and death, he has a lengthy conversation with Dumbledore (who was killed in the previous book). At the end of this conversation, Harry asks Dumbledore if this whole conversation was real, or whether it was just happening inside his head. Dumbledore responds: “Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?”

I think that this awesome quote (J.K., you’re a genius) further illustrates the idea that our perceived notions of reality may not be correct, or are too narrow-minded. Although, I’m kind of torn here: I don’t think that Harry was imagining his conversation with Dumbledore, but I do think that Dahlmann was imagining his trip to the south. Yet both of these events took place within the character’s mind. So if Harry’s conversation with Dumbledore was “real,” then perhaps Dahlmann’s trip to the south can be considered “real” as well.

Like I stated in my discussion questions, this is an extremely abstract and therefore difficult concept to discuss. Basically what I’m getting at is that dreams and imagination can be other forms of “reality.” However, perhaps it is also wise to heed more advice from Dumbledore: “It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.”

My Response to Leah's "Blog Número Ocho"

Interesting observations! I agree that it’s fun to look at a piece of artwork and have an idea of what it’s about based on what you've learned in a class. Could you imagine looking at Rivera’s A Dream of a Sunday Afternoon in Alameda Park at the beginning of last semester? We would have had no idea of what any of it was about, but recently we were able to identify many of the people in it and come up with the gist of the story/purpose of it. Honestly, I have no idea what is in the bottom left corner of The Zapatistas, but I agree it kind of seems out of place. I wanted to point out, however, the wavy green lines to the bottom left of the man’s face. These almost look like blades of grass, or some type of agricultural crop. I think that it’s no coincidence that this image is part of the man’s hand—the Zapatistas fought for land, and that land was part of who they were, and so I think that this part of the mural represents the land they were fighting for and its importance to them.

(http://leahslatinamericancivilizationblog.blogspot.com/2014/03/blog-numero-ocho.html?showComment=1394208870368#c153700584020934102)

Blog 8: Horacio Quiroga

In Professor Stark’s reading for this week, Horacio Quiroga was mentioned. I was excited to see this because in my high school Spanish classes we read a couple of stories by him, including “A la deriva” (“Adrift”) and “Anaconda.” Horacio Quiroga (1878-1937) was a Uruguayan playwright, poet, and short story writer. The jungle featured prominently in his works, as did death and despair and, frankly, some of his stories are quite bizarre.

In “A la deriva,” a man is walking in the jungle, when all of a sudden he is bitten by a venomous snake. He and his wife live alone in the jungle, and so he has to take a canoe down the Paraná to get to a town or somewhere he can get medical attention. The venom has made his leg swell up like a balloon, and is quickly killing him. Alas, he cannot reach help in time, and dies in his canoe, left adrift in the Paraná.

This was an extremely difficult story to read in high school because there was a lot of Spanish vocabulary I didn't know. However, once I had decoded it enough to understand it, I remember thinking, “What the heck kind of story did my teacher assign us?” It was an incredibly bizarre story, and only when we researched Quiroga a little more did it make sense.

Quiroga loved very much and lived for a while in the jungle, so he was no stranger to its wild animals and other dangers. Additionally, he led a pretty traumatic life: his father accidentally killed himself when Quiroga was just a child; in 1899, his stepfather committed suicide and Quiroga found the body; his two brothers died of typhoid fever in 1901; later that year, he accidentally shot and killed his friend; and his first wife killed herself by ingesting poison, but only died after eight days of agonizing pain. Thus, Quiroga’s life was fraught with death and tragedy, so it makes sense that his stories would be filled with death and despair as well.

Anyway, I decided to make this blog post about Quiroga because he was an important author of South America during the time period we are discussing now in class, the early 1900s. His works are important, perhaps because they document life in the jungle, a life that not many intellectuals have led. Even though his stories are very strange, I would recommend them because they are still very interesting.

My Response to Alexis's "Blog Seven"

Haha, thanks for those awesome pictures of the band! I really liked your analysis of “Revolution.” However, I’m still not entirely convinced that Demetrio was all that innocent in the book. He ordered Cervantes to burn down Don Mónico’s house, and it was very unclear whether or not his family was still inside when he did so. And when Camilla told Demetrio how Güero was abusing his prisoner, he merely “wrinkled his brow but made no answer” (Azuela 109). Yes, he wasn’t involved as often in the looting, pillaging, and violence, but he still was involved several times, and did nothing to stop the violent acts he saw others committing.

(http://alexislaciv.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-seven.html#comment-form)

Blog 7: Songs and Such

It was really fun today in class when we sang “La cucaracha” and “Cielito lindo.” When we sang “Cielito lindo,” it reminded me of this episode of I Love Lucy. (By the way, if you’ve never seen an episode of I Love Lucy, DO IT. This show is cheesy but hilarious, and I would recommend this episode, “The Freezer,” “Lucy Does a TV Commercial,” or “Job Switching.”) In “The Freezer,” Lucy and Ethel accidentally purchase 700 pounds of meat, and so Ethel tries to stall Ricky and Fred while Lucy moves the meat from their new freezer to the currently non-functional furnace by asking Ricky to sing for her. One of the songs Ricky sings to her is “Cielito lindo.” My family and I actually watched this episode this past Christmas Eve, and when Ricky started singing this song, I shouted “We just sang this in my sequence!” Needless to say, I was very excited to sing along and demonstrate to my parents what I had learned.

Our discussion of “La cucaracha” during Professor Stark’s part of the class was very interesting. Just hearing the lyrics alone, you would never know that “la cucaracha” refers to General Huerta, and reflects his reputation of being an alcoholic and addicted to drugs. It sort of reminds me of another song that you wouldn’t necessarily understand just by hearing the lyrics: “Yankee Doodle.” I think most Americans learn this song as kids, and it’s supposed to be a patriotic song. It wasn’t until high school that I learned the true meaning of the lyrics. They go: “Yankee Doodle went to town/A-riding on a pony/He stuck a feather in his hat/And called it macaroni.” Apparently, this tune was originally used by the British to make fun of American soldiers during the American Revolutionary War. “Doodle” was a derogatory term that meant “foolish” or “simpleton.” “Macaroni” was a fancy style of Italian dress that was widely imitated among the British in which they would wear a hat with a single feather. By saying “stuck a feather in his hat and called it macaroni,” the British were making fun of Americans who they saw as stupid enough to simply stick a feather in their hat and think themselves ‘fancy.’ It was later used to rally American soldiers, and is now a patriotic song.

It’s funny how songs with such simple lyrics can have such deep political meanings. Both “La cucaracha” and “Yankee Doodle” were written by people with the purpose of making fun of their enemies, but on the surface they seem like simple, fun folk songs.

My Reaction to Connor's Blog: "Blog #5: The Strenuous Life"

What Connor said:

"Out of all the readings we have done this semester, maybe even the whole year, I found this reading the most interesting. With this speech being full of inspirational quotes and phrases, I couldn't help but feel empowered. After reading this I can see why so many people like Theodore Roosevelt. However, there is no point in his speech where he mentions to dare these mighty deeds with well thought out plans. The foremost attitude I got from this reading was something like "go off half-cocked and hope for the best..." This strategy, while when successful is very impressive, is extremely ineffective and not the best way to live one's life. For example, if we relate this to the movie "Viva Zapata", we will see where Emiliano Zapata's downfall occurred. Right at the end, when Zapata had all he needed in his life, he decided to take an uncalculated risk, which was to collect ammo from a, supposedly, turned national soldier. This situation was clearly a trap, and even though they would have benefited from the ammo they would receive, it still wasn't worth Emiliano dieing over it, and that's exactly what happened. The point here is that, yes, it is much better to live a life full of triumphs, speckled with dots of failure, than it is to "live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat". This, however, does not mean one should forsake common sense and reason and act solely on impulse. And as we saw in Zapata's case, his failure resulted in his death. Now I'm not saying that Roosevelt was wrong here, I mean his goal was to motivate the American people, which this speech should have done that quite well. The strenuous life sounds hard, but full of great successes, so why wouldn't anyone want to live like that?! All I'm saying is if one is going to live a life on the edge, remember to have a safety net below in case you fall!"


What I said:

"I really liked reading "The Strenuous Life," too, and your thoughts here are really interesting. When I read it, I didn't get the sense that Roosevelt was encouraging people to "half-cock" everything they do, but what you said makes sense. He really was motivating people to strive for a "strenuous life" in everything they do; however, this is not possible. If you struggle and try to tackle difficult tasks all the time, then you will never have time to sit back and make plans that will help increase your likelihood of success. So maybe Roosevelt should have advocated for a “strenuous life” for half of the time—the other half should be spent carefully making plans so that when you do decide to “go big,” you don’t make a huge mistake."

(http://nizielsc.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-5-strenuous-life-out-of-all.html?showComment=1392428598481#c8954838421515246825)

Blog 6: Emiliano Zapata

Today in class when we were discussing the movie Viva Zapata and discussing how Zapata’s goal was to get the peasants’ land back from the elite large landowners, someone said “He’s just like Robin Hood! He steals from the rich and gives to the needy!” I couldn’t help but get this song from Shrek struck in my head, so I thought I’d share it with y'all.

Anyway, what really got me thinking today was the discussion about how Zapata relates to 1950s politics in the United States. During the 1950s, the U.S. was involved in the Cold War, and the Red Scare was going on at home. The question that really interested me was: is Zapata supposed to represent communism in the film? And if he is, then what was the filmmakers’ message about communism? First, I don’t think that Zapata is supposed to completely represent communism. Yes, his goals kind of paralleled those of communism—he wanted to redistribute land among the peasants that was under the control of rich, powerful elites. However, unlike communists who want to confiscate all land from the rich and equally distribute it among everyone, Zapata merely wanted to regain control of the land that had actually belonged to the peasants before it was seized from them. I like what Lucas said in our discussion, too: maybe Zapata was sort of supposed to represent communism or at least parallel it, but the point that the filmmakers were trying to make was that Americans were getting over-paranoid about communism and freaking out over a cause that could actually be considered noble. I’m not saying that I believe in communism, but throughout Viva Zapata the viewer can’t help but sympathize with the peasants, whose plight is similar to poor people all over the world who have so little, and are therefore willing to embrace a communist system that promises them so much.

Whatever message the filmmakers were trying to portray, I still enjoyed this movie. I’m not going to lie, at the part when Zapata was president for basically a day and he was about to write down the name of the defiant peasant he had just encountered, I was screaming at my laptop: “Don’t do it! Don’t do it! Gaa you’ve turned into Díaz!!!” There were also many humorous moments throughout the film that I appreciated, and overall I liked this movie.

My Reaction to Elena's Blog: "Blog #5- Education in the United States"

I totally get what you said about standardized courses. Last year I took AP Chemistry, and the teacher admitted that the goal of the class was to prepare us to do well on the AP exam. His strategies for teaching the class were then based off this. It’s kind of sad that the purpose of that class was to do well on a test, rather than simply learn chemistry. I learned a lot in that class, but I’ve forgotten most of it since I took the exam. It really did feel like we memorized stuff just in order to “spill it all out on a test.”

I think that this problem with learning is related to what Ken Bain wrote about in What the Best College Students Do. Sometimes, schooling requires you to take a “surface” approach to learning, where you simply memorize stuff in order to do well on a test. What students should try to do is learn “deeply,” where you think critically and take away some deep understanding of a subject that you can use later in your life. I like that we have the opportunity to do that a lot in the Honors College; in this class we have discussion questions, blogs, and essays in which we can develop our thoughts and develop a more solid, deep understanding of the topics about which we write.

(http://elenalatinamerica.blogspot.com/2014/02/blog-5-education-in-united-states.html?showComment=1391906077794#!/2014/02/blog-5-education-in-united-states.html)

Blog 5: Sarmiento v. Martí

I’m not quite sure if this blog entry is due Monday or next Friday, but since I just printed the final draft of my paper (woohoo!), I decided to write this so that I could check one more thing off my list!

I really enjoyed the debate that we had on Wednesday. It was a great way to summarize the differences between Sarmiento and Martí’s ideas. It was sort of funny when we read and then discussed Martí’s “Our America,” because almost for the past month, we have been discussing the liberal ideologies of elites. Many elites in nineteenth century Latin America wanted to Europeanize, or in other words, to model their nations after Europe and the United States. Then all of a sudden, we read Martí’s essay, which basically said the opposite. There was no civilization versus barbarism, but rather “false erudition” versus the natural man. The people whom Sarmiento had previously called “barbaric” and obstacles to progress, the indigenous people and people of the countryside, now were to have crucial roles in Martí’s America. These “natural men” knew their country and its people and therefore knew what the nation needed, and so they must be an important part of the governing process. On the other hand, learned people who had studied United States and European governments did not know what their countries needed. According to Martí, European and United States forms of government would not suit Latin America, because Latin America needed governments that suited their unique needs; they couldn’t simply adopt other forms of government—they had to perhaps choose a model and then adapt it to fit their needs.

Thus, there are some considerable differences between Sarmiento and Martí’s ideas. I would say that I agree more with Martí. Just because one model of government works well for one country, doesn’t mean that it will work well for others. Every country has unique circumstances, and must be able to adapt to them. “Natural men” are needed to govern a country, not educated people who supposedly have studied governments but don’t know anything about their native nation.

My Reaction to Gabbie's Blog: "Blog 4"

What Gabbie said:

"For anyone who knows me, they know I love The Great Gatsby. first off I think the book is very good and I think the movie is even better. anywho, with that in mind, while I was reading the part in Cecilia Valdes about the party hosted by Mercedes, I found a lot of similarities between that party and the party that Gatsby hosts in F. Scott Fitzgeralds book. First off, I found similarities between the party guests. In the Great Gatsby, the guests are all kinds of people, different people from everywhere. some are poor and some are rich; some are famous, others are school boys. However, no one has an invitation. Nick Carroway seems to be the only one who received an invite and no one really seems to care whether or not people had been invited. In Cecilia Valdes, the only people invited seem to be the band, Cecilia and her friend, Leonardo, and Cantalapiedra. aside from that, people just start showing up. Similar to the Great Gatsby, the people who show up are from all different classes. there are whites and mulattos and blacks all there and, though they don't really seem to interact, they are still all in the same place and for the same reason.

Another similarity, I found, is between Cecilia and Daisy. Daisy is described as admired by all, and Gatsby specifically has these parties hoping that, someday, she will show up. Daisy is told to be a very beautiful woman who, upon arriving, is basically the center of the party. she is always accompanied by someone, whether it be Tom Buchanon, Gatsby, or Nick. She has boys falling for her left and right, though she is married to Tome Buchanon. Cecilia is very similar. She is very beautiful and dressed very well when she shows up to Mercedes Party. She is also always next to someone, this person being Nemesia at Mercedes party. She has boys falling all over her, particularly Pimienta and Leonardo. Whatever she does, everyone else wants to do. if she is dancing, everyone follows, when she sits down, everyone assumes that its time to eat and sits with her. she didn't want to leave the dancing early because she didn't want people to assume that she got tired and had to sit down, because that obviously is very terrible to do and you mustn't do that at a party (sorry guys, that was my touch of sarcasm for the blog).

However, with this comparison in mind, I found a lot of differences. The overall messages of the books are completely different. In Gatsby, I find the overall message to be not to live in the past, you have to get past the past (I'm funny sometimes) and move on. But in Cecilia Valdes, the purpose of the story to show the differences between the social classes in Cuba and how they interact. In Gatsby, Jay Gatsby throws all these parties in the hopes that Daisy may arrive some day so they can fall in love. in Cecilia Valdes, it is Mercedes "saint's day" or birthday, so that is the purpose of her party. Also, in the Great Gatsby, almost everyone was not invited to his party. In Cecilia Valdes, it was split mostly in half between those who were invited and those who were not.

Overall, when I was reading chapters 4-6, I was reminded greatly of the Great Gatsby. But I am not saying they are the exact same thing. I just thought the similarities were pretty cool and interesting how really the definition of a "party" and "the popular kids" is not really different over the years."
(http://redpathg.blogspot.com/2014/01/blog-4.html?showComment=1391357102244#c2815929674081504728)


My response:

"First off, I would have to disagree with you. I love The Great Gatsby, too, but I liked the book better than the movie. ;) Anyway, I love all the connections you’ve found! I think you could go further and compare Cecilia to Gatsby himself. Both strive to be seen as part of the upper class, but they’re not: Cecilia, because she is a mulatto, and Gatsby, because he is “new” money, not “old.” Also, both attract a lot of gossip: everyone gossips about Gatsby and where they think he came from, how he got his money, and why he throws extravagant parties every weekend; and people gossip about Cecilia and who they think her parents are."

Blog 4: Cecilia

This week when we were reading Cirilo Villaverde’s Cecilia Valdés, I couldn’t help but thinking of the song, “Cecilia,” by Simon & Garfunkel. I made this connection for obvious reasons, but when I thought about the lyrics of the song, I found that some parallels can be drawn between Cecilia Valdés and “Cecilia.” In “Cecilia,” they sing “Celia, you're breaking my heart/
You're shaking my confidence daily.” In the song, Cecilia is a heartbreaker, one who captures the attention of many men, and causes the singer to sing: “Cecilia, I’m down on my knees/I’m begging you please to come home.” Likewise, Cecilia Valdés is a heartbreaker. All of the men at the party in chapters four through six, white men and mulattos alike, are attracted to her. But, I think the connection between these two works can go further, and my following ideas are based off what we discussed in class today.

In Cecilia Valdés, Cecilia is depicted as superficial, a person who doesn’t have a great personality or a lot of values. In fact, Villaverde describes her by saying that “she had a small mouth and full lips, indicating voluptuousness rather than strength of character.” He then goes on to describe her beautiful appearance, and it seems as though her appearance is the only thing that matters. Later, after Cecilia has grown up and is attending the party, she is described again as a beautiful creature. However, she isn’t really portrayed as more than an object of desire, desired by both white men and colored men. Similarly, in the song “Cecilia,” Cecilia isn’t given much character. She is simply an object that the singer wants to attain, as he begs her “please to come home.”

This objectification of women makes me think more specifically about the situation in Cuba in the nineteenth century. Back then, white men desired mulatto girls like Cecilia. But why? Because they were beautiful? I think it goes beyond that. Because mulatto women were of a different race and therefore of a different social class, it was more acceptable for white men to shamelessly pursue them. Last semester we talked about the concept of “honor.” These lower class mulatto girls wouldn’t have had any honor. Thus, maybe white men thought they would have more luck seducing mulatto women who had no honor to lose, than white, upper class women who did have honor to lose.

My Reaction to Ian's "Blog 3 More Comparisons?"

What Ian said:

"This week we read Echeverria's "The Slaughter House" and discovered that it is filled with a bunch of analogies and symbolism. One certain part of this reading really interested me and reminded me of something else, which I am kind of surprised no one mentioned...

The part that I related to and caught my attention was the story of the killing of the young Unitarian man. Many parts of this scene reminded me of the Crucifixion of Jesus that appears throughout the Gospels of the New Testament in the Word of God. In "The Slaughter House", Echeverria clearly states this analogy to the death of Christ in this line from the reading: "...they finally dragged the unfortunate young man to the bench of tortures just as if they had been the executioners of the Lord themselves." I believe "executioners of the Lord" is pretty clear. It is also interesting to consider the fact that Echeverria opposes the church, yet he relates this event in Catholicism, his enemy's religion, to a character he uses to get the readers on his side, against the Federalists.

These were a few of the connections that popped into my head while reading this part of the story:

First of all, just as Jesus is brought before and judged by Pontias Pilate and the Jews (Matthew 27:11-26), the young Unitarian is brought before and judged by Matasiete and the Federalist people. Just like the way they treated the Unitarian with their "Death to the savage Unitarians!" chant, reminded me of the death of Christ and the people yelling "Crucify him!" in Matthew 27:22-23. Again, the people of the Slaughter House were chanting "Long live Matasiete!" while the Jews similarly chanted "We have no king but Caesar!" in John 19:15. The mocking of the Unitarian also reminds me of the people and soldiers mocking Jesus (Matthew 27:27-31). In "The Slaughter House", the Federalists mock the Unitarian by cutting his hair and taking off his clothes. Similarly, the soldiers take off Jesus's robe and place a crown of thorns on his head while continually mocking Him. Along with this, the Unitarian was beaten and tied down to a table, which again is somewhat similar to how Jesus was beaten and nailed to the cross to die.

I normally struggle with making connections and comparing different readings, but this actually caught my attention and reminded me of something I was very familiar with, the Bible and my faith. Again, these might be somewhat loose connections but they completely made sense to me and worked in my head so I hope you too can see a little similarity between these two completely different readings and events." (http://ianfelt.blogspot.com/2014/01/blog-3-more-comparisons.html#comment-form)


My response:

"Wow, these are some really good connections that you made! I wonder if Echeverría did this on purpose. If he did, I can see how contradictory it seems: why would he use Jesus as a metaphor, if he was anticlerical? I think there might be two possible answers to that question. First, although he was opposed to the influence the Catholic Church had in politics, he still might very well have been religious. One can be in favor of the separation of Church and state and still be devout. Second, I think that maybe Echeverría was trying to make a point to the Federalists; if the Federalists reading this story recognized the metaphor, then maybe it would help them see that they were wrong in persecuting the Unitarians, whom Echeverría portrays as as innocent, good, and pure as Jesus."

Blog 3: Cowboys and Sherlock Holmes

This week when I was reading chapter II of Sarmiento's Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism, and Sarmiento was describing the different types of gauchos, or cowboys, of nineteenth century Argentina, I couldn't help but think that Sherlock Holmes would make a great gaucho.

One of my favorite TV shows is BBC's Sherlock, which is a revamp of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories, set in present-day London. Sherlock has incredible powers of deduction; that is, he can tell you your whole life’s story just by looking at you. He is incredibly smart, and uses a tool called a “mind palace” to store away information; theoretically, he can “never forget anything.” The following clip is of Sherlock deducing Dr. John Watson, whom he has just met:

It is later explained just how Sherlock knew all of those things about John (if you want to find out you should watch the series, it’s pretty greatJ). Obviously, Sherlock has astonishing observational and memory skills, skills which rastreadors and baqueanos also have. A rastreador is a type of gaucho who is an incredibly skilled tracker. When a theft occurs, “The rastreador is called in immediately; he looks at the tracks and follows them, only looking at the ground from time to time, as if his eyes were seeing a relief of that footprint, imperceptible to others. He follows along the streets, crosses through gardens, enters a home, and coldly says, pointing out a man he finds there, ‘He’s the one!’” Rastreadors, just like Sherlock, have the ability to see what others can’t or overlook, and to follow trails that lead to criminals.“The rastreador is a serious, circumspect person, whose pronouncements are accepted as evidence in the lower courts.” Similarly, Sherlock has caught numerous criminals, and has had to testify many times in court.

The second type of gaucho is a baqueano, which is a sort of guide who “knows twenty thousand square leagues of plains, forests, and mountains like the palm of his hand.” “A baqueano comes upon a little path crossing the road he takes, and he knows to which remote water hole it leads; if he comes upon a thousand, and this happens in the space of a hundred leagues, he knows them all, he knows where they come from and where they go. He knows the hidden ford in the river, above or below the usual passage, and the same for a hundred rivers and streams; he knows of a path, in the extensive marshland, where it can be crossed without difficulty, and the same for a hundred different marshes.” Similarly, Sherlock knows every street in London. In fact, during the first episode, he and John are able to chase a cab around London and deduce which way it will go based on what types of streets and traffic lights it encounters. The first video in this entry is part of this cool scene.

Thus, I think that Sherlock Holmes would make a great cowboy. However, to bring some deeper analysis to this blog entry, I will compare their characters. Both Sherlock and the gaucho are social outcasts: most people think Sherlock is a “freak,” and he has very few friends (he is sort of a jerk). Gauchos also tend to be outsiders—they are disdained by city folk, are intimidating to the average person, and generally tend to be loners by choice. Nonetheless, both are respected. The gaucho is respected because he is useful to a variety of different people in a variety of different ways. Likewise, people respect Sherlock; even though they may dislike him as a person, they begrudgingly accept that he is brilliant and is always very helpful in solving crimes. Thus, both Sherlock and rastreadors/baqueanos stand apart in society due to their extraordinary skills, and though they don’t fit in well with society, society needs and respects them.

My Reaction to Alexis's "Blog Two"

What Alexis said:

"After talking this week about newly independent Latin American nations, and the way the elites took advantage of the indigenous people, I began to see connections from our readings to present day United States. I know all of you are stuck on the jungle book analogy, but I'd like to try and be somewhat original and take my own approach to the subject. Whether what I say sounds legitimate or not, is for you to decide.

After reading Burns and Sarmiento, I began to think about the occupy Wall Street movement. Think about it for a second: the so called "1%" is just the same as the elites, and the other 99% would be comparable to the peasants and every other person living in Latin America who was receiving no benefit from the rich elites' decisions.

The elites grew wealthy and lived luxurious lifestyles in Latin America while the poor commoners had children growing up in no better living conditions than the dirty family dog. some of the decisions the elites made, like trying to Europeanize the countries, often made the peasants' living conditions even worse. The elites did not care, however, because meanwhile they were basking in all the glory that came from being a rich white person of the nation.

The same argument can be made for the top 1% of the U.S. population. From what I have heard in my high school civics class, and what I looked up on the internet, this 1% of the population holds anywhere from 30 to 40 percent of our wealth. No wonder the other 99% of people in our country grew so frustrated and started the occupy Wall Street movement.

I don't know much about the situation in the U.S., but I feel like the relation between it and Latin America in the past is similar. To me, it is even a little ironic, considering the fact that people in Latin America saw the U.S., and wished to be more like it." (http://alexislaciv.blogspot.com/2014/01/blog-2.html#comment-form)

 

My response:

 

"While I do see the parallels you are drawing between 19th century Latin America and present-day United States, I would like to identify several important differences. First, I agree that the elites' efforts to modernize Latin America had negative effects on the lives of the lower classes. However, in the United States today, poor people are not poor because rich people are rich, and rich people are not rich because poor people are poor. The rich 1% are not hoarding away their wealth, making it impossible for lower class people to move up the social ladder. In this country, it is possible for everyone to enjoy an increase in wealth at the same time; that is the nature of a capitalist economy.

Also, you said that "the other 99% of people in our country grew so frustrated and started the occupy Wall Street Movement." I should point out that not 99% of the nation's population are liberals, are against capitalism, and supported Occupy Wall Street. Also, the "99%" in the United States is not the same as the 98-99% of Latin Americans who weren't rich, white elites. Yes, in Latin America most of the people in this group were extremely poor. However, the United States has a much larger middle class than Latin America did in the 19th century, and so the "99%" of people in the U.S. includes many middle-class people who do enjoy a relatively high standard of living."

Blog 2 (sorrynotsorry I made this whole post about Disney)

For my second blog entry, I was inspired by a fellow classmate, who suggested that the song "I Wanna Be Like You" from the Disney movie The Jungle Book is similar to the situation in Latin American countries in the 1800s, shortly after they won their independence from Spain. In the song, the king orangutan is analogous to these newly independent Latin American countries. Like Latin American countries wanted to be like European countries and the United States, the king orangutan wanted to be like humans, and so he sought Mowgli for help, because he believed Mowgli could teach him how to make fire. Latin American countries wanted to copy the industrialization, urbanization, infrastructures, liberal ideology, and overall "progress" of European countries and the United States, hence: “I wanna be like you!”

For this blog entry, I was inspired to find other Disney songs that are (partly) analogous to the era of Europeanization and nation-building in Latin America. I found four:

1.      The first song I came up with is “Part of Your World,” sung by Ariel in The Little Mermaid.  In it, Ariel expresses her desire to become a human, and leave her life as a mermaid behind. She thinks that life will be better “up where they stay all day in the sun.” Sebastian, her crab guardian/mentor, however, is disdainful of humans, which he sings about in his song “Under the Sea." Thus, in this situation, Ariel is the white, intellectual elite of the Latin American countries who wanted Europeanization, and wanted to be part of that European/United States world; Sebastian, on the other hand, would be the majority of the citizens of the Latin American countries who were apprehensive about modernization, and wanted to stick to traditional ways of life.

 

 

2.      The second song I thought of is “Gaston,” from Beauty and the Beast. After Gaston proposes to Belle and she turns him down, Gaston is “down in the dumps,” and his friend, Lefou, tries to cheer him up by listing all the things Gaston is best at. After the song, Gaston concludes that he is the best person for Belle, and that he will do anything to get her to marry him. In this situation, Gaston is the European ideologies forced by elites onto newly independent Latin American nations. Even though it would have been more effective to “adapt” these new ideologies rather than “adopt” them, the countries tried to copy them exactly. The elite were convinced that these were the best strategies for the new nations, when actually they had some negative consequences (discussed later); Gaston was convinced he was the best for Belle, when really he was a jerk.

 

3.      In the next song I found, I just focused on one quote, and my analogy is kind of obvious: “You think I’m an ignorant savage/And you’ve been so many places, I guess it must be so.” This song is “Colors of the Wind”, sung in Pocahontas, in which Pocahontas is singing to John Smith. The intellectual elite of Latin American countries considered the people of the countryside to be barbarians, while the people of cities were modern, "civilized," cultured, and knew better; Domingo Sarmiento wrote in his Facundo: Civilization and Barbarism that the Native Americans of Argentina were savages, and should be destroyed.

 

 

4.      The final song I came up with was “Following the Leader," from Peter Pan. It is sung by Michael and the Lost Boys as they play “follow the leader,” with John as their leader. They sing: “We’re following the leader, the leader, the leader/We’re following the leader, wherever he may go.” In this case, “the leader” is European countries/the United States, and the Lost Boys are Latin American countries. The Latin American countries (the ruling elite, at least) were so eager to follow the lead of their European models that they did so almost blindly, and before they knew it, they had created economic dependency on the European market, the majority of the population was impoverished, and there was a cultural clash between those who wanted “progress,” and those who didn’t.

Blog 1

Hi everybody! It seems like we already know each other pretty well, since we've already been in the same class for a whole semester. Nonetheless, here is some information you may not know about me: I am a Spanish major and a Chinese language minor. I’m not exactly sure what I want my career to be, but right now I am thinking about adding an English major, and possibly eventually teaching English to speakers of other languages.

I chose to take this class because it fits in perfectly with my Spanish major. Languages aren’t spoken in a vacuum, and so the more cultural information you know about a place where a language is spoken, the better and more effectively you can communicate with native speakers in that language. I learned bits of cultural information about Spanish-speaking countries here and there throughout the five years that I studied Spanish before starting college, and I saw taking this class as an opportunity to get a more extensive understanding of Latin American civilization and culture.