Response to Alex's Blog

I think it's pretty cool that you looked up additional information about women in the Revolution! I agree that in The Underdogs, the women were portrayed as subservient to men, especially Camilla. But I also wonder if Pintada was more like a Soladadera. We did not specifically read that she fought with the men, but she did everything else with the men and acted like a man so maybe we can infer that she fought as well? Just something to think about :)

Blog #7 La Catrina

     I don't know about the rest of you, but in my Spanish classes in high school we always had a fiesta to celebrate Cinco de Mayo and The Day of the Dead. In reality, I think these were just used as an excuse by my teachers to have a fiesta and let us students have some fun. But still, over the four years I did learn a little. In the mural Sueño de una tarde dominical en la Alameda Central  by Diego Rivera that we have been studying, La Catrina is right in the center so I'm pretty sure she's important.

    La Catrina started out as a political cartoon by Jose Guadalupe Posada in a newspaper around 1910. It is no coincidence that La Catrina appeared just as the Mexican Revolution was starting. Posada helped the illiterate people of Mexico to understand the problems with the Porfilian regime. La Catrina originally represented Mexicans that tried to pass themselves off as Europeans, and abandoned Mexican traditions.
    La Catrina was not an original idea by Posada though, she has deeper roots. She was based upon the Aztec Mictecacihuatl, goddess of death and Lady of Mictlan, the underworld. La Catrina came to represent the Day of the Dead. Other countries do not look as death the way that we do. In Mexico death is a time to celebrate. During the Day of the Dead, people go visit the grave sites of their loved ones that have passed away. Some hold the traditional belief that the dead return to earth this day and give council to the living. People bring candles, flowers, and favorite foods of the deceased and leave them at the grave. Then the family gets together and eats and tells favorite stories about the person who has died. It is a celebration for the family, where they celebrate the life of their loved one. Mexicans keep death close, treating it with familiarity instead of dread. La Catrina embodies this philosophy, that death should be celebrated because it is just another stage of life.

Response to Lucas's Blog

I really like that you chose to focus on women for your blog post this week, I found it very interesting! I think it meant a great deal that the rebels included women in their fighting and gathering of supplies. I have to disagree with you though on your point saying feminism in the US was merely non-existent in the early 20th century. Elizabeth Stanton and Susan B. Anthony were women of the late 1800's. They were the founders of the women's suffrage movement here in the United States. And the Seneca Falls Convention which is now viewed as the start of the feminist movement in the U.S, took place in 1848. In 1861 the Civil War erupted, pushing women's rights aside for a time. But once the war was over, women pushed even harder for equal rights. In 1920 women gained the right to vote in all parts the United States. This did not happen in Mexico until 1947, twenty seven years after the United States. So in my opinion, the U.S. was more open to feminism than Latin America in the early 20th century.

Blog #6 Pancho Villa

     About a month ago my older brother (a bit of a historian buff) asked me to tell him about Latin American history since that is one of the areas of the world he does not know much about. I proceeded to tell him the interesting stuff we'd been learning at the time, like the Spanish Conquest, and the Independence movements and such. He then proceeded to ask me about Pancho Villa (which he always mispronounces).
     At that point in time I had no answer for him. I knew less than he did about Pancho Villa, but I told him that we'd have another discussion once I had learned about him. Well we've been talking in class a great detail about the Mexican revolution. I now know the role that Pancho Villa played in the revolution, but I feel like I am still lacking some information. Where did he come from? Why did he get involved in the war? Well I was surprised to find that Pancho Villa had an interesting life before the war.

     His actual name isn't Pancho Villa, he was born Doroteo Arango, and he was the son of a sharecropper in San Juan del Rio. When he was 15 years old his father died, so he had to take on many responsibilities and work as a sharecropper in his father's place. Then one day, a year later, Villa heard that the owner of the hacienda he worked for was planning on raping Villa's sister. He then shot the owner and fled to the mountains. Two years later he was a leader of a group of bandits that he met in the mountains. They would steal from and commit crimes against the rich, and would often help poor members of the community. This is why Pancho Villa is often looked up to, he is a real life Robin-Hood.
     There are multiple theories as to why he changed his name from Doroteo Arango to Pancho Villa, it is hard to say for sure. Some say it was the name of another bandit leader, others say it was his grandfathers name, others speculate that it was to protect his family from trouble. Madero heard about Pancho Villa and his skills and thought he might be a good general in guerilla warfare in the revolution. So Villa was asked to join and, as we know, he did and became one of the greatest generals of the Mexican Revolution.

Response to Matt's Blog

Hey Matt, I really enjoyed your blog post! Can't say I agree on you with everything, but I enjoyed it :) Your post really helped me to understand the opposite side of the argument about the U.S involvement. And I do agree with you on some of your points. I especially like how you said that it should not be just the U.S. intervening when there is a humanitarian crisis in another country. I totally think that the U.S. should help, but I do agree that other countries need to help to; if we all worked together it would be less of a strain on everyone. However that would make logistics and figuring out who is in charge and how to go about helping, more difficult. But this could be a good exercise for countries- it would force them to work together thus forming bonds and ties to one another, encouraging global unification.

Blog #5 Theodore Roosevelt

     So these past few classes we have been discussing Dario's poem addressed to Theodore Roosevelt. Additionally we have been talking about Roosevelt's imperialistic policies towards Latin America. I agree wholeheartedly that Roosevelt was interfering too much in Latin America. It is one thing to try to help a developing nation, it is a whole other thing to try and take it over.
     But as we have been discussing I have repeatedly thought that our class was kinda bashing on Theodore Roosevelt. I realize why, but it still just didn't sit too well with me. Therefore I decided to dig up some old A.P. U.S. History notes and talk a little bit about the good aspects of Roosevelt. This may help some to understand why he is viewed by some Americans of as one of The United States' most important presidents whereas Latin American countries view him as a villain.
     The main difference I came across is the difference between Domestic and Foreign policy. I think we can all agree that Roosevelt's foreign policy kind of sucked. His main goal was to obtain control over Latin America and also the Philippines. Because of the Monroe Doctrine Roosevelt believed it was The United States' right to intervene in Latin America.
     I believe that the reason that Roosevelt is viewed favorably in the U.S. is because of his domestic policies. To begin with, Roosevelt created what was called The Square Deal. He tried to make things fair in the United States. This began with him coming to the aide of a labor union in the coal mining industry. He threatened the owners of the mills with federal takeover if they did not negotiate with the labor union.
     One of the greatest accomplishments of Theodore Roosevelt was the Sherman Anti-trust Act. After this act was created, Roosevelt attacked monopolies in the American market. He broke them down in order to help consumers in the U.S. First on his list was the monopoly of the railroads by none other than J.P Morgan (that name sound familiar?). He destroyed the monopoly that Morgan had on the railroads which greatly helped consumers. Roosevelt went on to bust many more trusts, making him a sort of a hero to consumers. As I was trying to find how many trust he did bust (sorry, I couldn't find any reliable resources) I came across this disturbing little song that I hope you will enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvZP93XqyTw
     Furthermore Theodore Roosevelt worked a lot to preserve the nations resources. He worked endlessly to protect the nation's woodlands and mountain ranges. He created many new national forests and protected lands which ended up being around 172 million acres (before his presidency there were only 42 million acres of protected land). Additionally he helped to pass the Meat Inspection Act and The Pure Rood and Drug Act. This made products much safer for consumers.
    So that's what I got for the U.S. perspective on Roosevelt, hopefully that clears up the discrepancy between the United States' and Latin American views.

Response to Leah's Slavery Blog

Wow Leah, great job on your blog! It was a bit of a read but definitely worth it. I really liked all of your comparisons to slavery- especially the modern day ones. It's odd that we don't think of these things as slavery. For instance women in the middle east. I believe that is so very wrong but I would have never linked that to slavery. But in essence it is. It makes me wonder if that is how slave owners felt in Latin America. They knew it was wrong but thought that was just how the world was so they did nothing about it. What a chilling thought.

Blog #4 No Happy Endings

       I really enjoyed reading Cecilia Valdes for class this week. That and The Slaughterhouse were the most interesting things I have read for this class all year. This of course is due to the fact that these are works of fiction. The last Discussion Question for Cecilia Valdes asked what we thought would happen in the end of the novel. This lit a spark in me, and the ideas started flowing. Creative writing used to be one of my very favorite pastimes, I would write short stories all the time, based on people in my life, far off adventures, or the most randsomest of things. It was my favorite thing to do. But then, my stories started turning out all wrong. Never did I write a happy ending, never were my stories filled with happiness. I stopped writing. I refused to write anything outside of class, even when I had a great idea come to my mind. I did not like my stories. I would write quickly and become filled with the ideas of it all, but upon completion I could not understand how such a nice idea could have turned into such a dark story. It had been years since I had written anything, so I thought hey, why don't I try to finish Cecilia Valdes? Here is what I came up with.

Cecilia ran through the alleyway. “I must escape” she thought. Her beautiful white dress was now torn into shreds and stained with blood. Her usual pretty face was now a haunted view, her eye blackened, her hair tossed and tangled bout. The expression she wore was grotesque, twisted from her fear.
 

            She heard him approach much too late. Cecilia tried to run but was pushed onto the ground like an unwanted doll. Cantalapiedra stood over her, grinning madly.
 

            “Did you really think you could escape me, you filthy mulatta?” He kicked her to the ground as she tried to flee once more.
 

            “Please stop this! I have done nothing to you!”
 

            “Do you think me a fool?” He shouted, “You are the sole cause of this revolution and I will see you pay!”
 

            Cecilia held the hearts of many men- all who saw her were filled with a desirous longing for her. She toyed with them all, using them to advance herself, and when their usefulness wore off, she left their hearts mangled in shreds.
 

            She used black slaves to get her fine things, stolen from their maters’ wives. She used mulattos to get herself invited to finest parties. She used poor Pimienta to make her the belle of the ball. He now played the part of the village fool, playing his broken clarinet on the lowly street corners for spare coins. She used Lorenzo- marriage was not enough for her, she was still seen as a lowly mulatto. What she needed was racial equality, but not for the betterment of her people no, she solely wanted to take what she perceived to be her place at the top of Havanan society. She manipulated Lorenzo into lighting the spark that struck the revolution into a flame.
 

            “Spain will win this war, and it shall start by consuming the viper that started it all.” And with those words he struck his dagger into her heart. “Viva Cuba.” he spat as he turned and faded back into the darkness.
 

            The revolution was soon put down by the Spanish soldiers. The people of Havana had once adored Cecilia, almost worshiped her. But at her funeral only her grandmother, Sena Josepha remained.
 

            “My poor child,” she wailed, “Had you not learned your place, not been so beautiful, blossomed so brightly, then the world might not have plucked you and carried you away."

 

          So yeah, I guess I still cannot write a happy ending. Oh well, maybe I'll try writing again in another few years. Sorry if you hated my ending to the story, I realize it is probably nothing like the original ending so my apologies. This turned into a bit of a personal experiment, sorry if it's super weird.