I think this video can be seen as a connector of the two parts of our class. It shows how directly primary sources can affect the world. In class we usually read or watch something and then talk about what it is referencing in the world at the time. Well this time I think it's the other way around. This video changed what people thought about Nicaragua. It made people realize how corrupt the government was, and what atrocities were happening there. I believe this is an example of how the media can be used for good. After this video was shown, the U.S. and other countries withdrew their support for the Somoza regime. Jimmy Carter said about the incident "The murder of American newsman Bill Stewart in Nicaragua was an act of barbarism that all civilized people condemn." This helped the Frente Sandinista Liberacion Nacional to take power. In power they instituted many reforms to try to help the Nicaraguan people their biggest being a huge literacy campaign. Later the U.S. would get involved again and ousts the Sandinista government by supporting the Contras because we were too scared of socialism. The corrupt dictatorship of the Somoza family was ended in part by this video and I think that is truly amazing- that a one minute video could have such an impact.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Blog #11 Bill Stewart
So if you guys remember Professor Stark told us on Friday about how the ABC cameraman Bill Stewart was killed in Nicaragua. He also said he couldn't find the video to show us though he said that he would like to because of the importance of this footage. Stark told us that this video was what created U.S. awareness and interest in Nicaragua. So I went out and found the footage.
Monday, March 24, 2014
Response to Gabby's Blog
You bring up a very good point here Gabby. I learned about the Desaparecidos in my Spanish class in high school and I was completely horrified. It's hard for me to believe that the United States just sat by and let this happen- and even worse, that we were involved in installing the government that did this! Like you said, I would hope that if something like this happened today that we would step in and try to stop it, but at the same time we have to be cautious. Maybe when the U.S. supported the government back when, they also thought they were doing the right thing. If we went to try to help again, maybe we would once again end up making the situation even worse for the people that lived there. Foreign involvement is a very tricky situation- is it better to try and help and possibly worsen the situation? Or is it better to stay away and let other countries go their own course
Sunday, March 23, 2014
Blog #10 Who Should Own the Art?
On Friday I really enjoyed going to the Art Gallery Support Building, partly because it was such a beautiful day, partly because I love walking, partly due to the comfy chairs, and partly to do with Posada's prints that we got to look at :)
As we sat there discussing Posada and his importance to Mexico my mind couldn't help but wander to one of my favorite Nancy Drew computer games... In Secret of the Scarlet Hand, Nancy Drew is working at a Museum in Washington D.C. when there is an art theft. She then (as the super sleuth that she is) tracks down the thief. Now I realize this seems like quite the stretch to our class on Friday but bear with me. So in this game Nancy talks to a man from the Mexican consulate who believes that the museum should not have had the piece of art to begin with (it was a Mayan artifact). He believed that artwork belonged to the country that it was discovered in, and it should stay there. As he says "If people want to learn about Mexico, why do they not travel to Mexico?" I couldn't help feeling some of the same feelings as Alejandro. Why does Grand Valley State University, in Michigan USA have 10% of Posada's works? I just thought that was ridiculous. What gives us the right to take this history from Mexico? Does it not belong there for the Mexican people to appreciate as it is THEIR history? Why is a class of freshman at Grand Valley able to look at Posada's work and not a Mexican class?
I'm sorry if I sound unappreciative, I really did enjoy getting to see some of Posada's work- I thought it was very cool! But at the same time, I wondered what gave me the privilege to? Just because a guy with money knew of guy that knew a guy?
As we sat there discussing Posada and his importance to Mexico my mind couldn't help but wander to one of my favorite Nancy Drew computer games... In Secret of the Scarlet Hand, Nancy Drew is working at a Museum in Washington D.C. when there is an art theft. She then (as the super sleuth that she is) tracks down the thief. Now I realize this seems like quite the stretch to our class on Friday but bear with me. So in this game Nancy talks to a man from the Mexican consulate who believes that the museum should not have had the piece of art to begin with (it was a Mayan artifact). He believed that artwork belonged to the country that it was discovered in, and it should stay there. As he says "If people want to learn about Mexico, why do they not travel to Mexico?" I couldn't help feeling some of the same feelings as Alejandro. Why does Grand Valley State University, in Michigan USA have 10% of Posada's works? I just thought that was ridiculous. What gives us the right to take this history from Mexico? Does it not belong there for the Mexican people to appreciate as it is THEIR history? Why is a class of freshman at Grand Valley able to look at Posada's work and not a Mexican class?
I'm sorry if I sound unappreciative, I really did enjoy getting to see some of Posada's work- I thought it was very cool! But at the same time, I wondered what gave me the privilege to? Just because a guy with money knew of guy that knew a guy?
As a side note, I loved this game so much (and learning about the Maya) that this game is one of the reasons I started taking Spanish classes, which eventually led to me taking this Latin American Civilization class!
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Response to Jacqueline's Blog
I really like the point you make in this post! I have actually been thinking along the same lines. I learned about Cuba in my A.P. U.S. History class, and I am awestruck at how much was left out. I thought this especially when we were talking about the Cuban Missile Crisis. In that class we were basically taught that Cuba was trying to provoke a war because they hated the U.S. I definitely think that we need to be active citizens and look up additional information and opposing views of event that happen.
Blog #9 What is the point?
I think we can all agree that our reading lately have been a little more cryptic than usual. Nothing seems to mean what you think it means. As you read you can't just read the surface level of the story, you have to delve into symbolism and juxtaposition of words and directions used and word choice and all sorts of literary tools to get the actual meaning of the story. So after reading, and rereading and doing the questions, and asking Gabby, and looking over it another time, and talking about the story in a class discussion, I am finally able to understand the purpose or the meaning behind the story.
My thought for this week is what is the point? Why do these authors hide their meaning in-between the lines of their work? Why does it take so much thought just to try to figure out what the author is trying to say? Why doesn't the author just go right out and say it? Wouldn't that be so much easier? Especially with the stuff we've been reading recently. Who is the target audience for this stuff anyways? I dearly hope it is not everyday people of the country. In most the countries we've been studying in Latin America, there is a very low literacy rate, or if the people can read, it is not near the level of these writings. How do the authors expect everyday people to decipher the meanings behind these stories? I wonder if they don't. Maybe these stories instead are targeted toward the wealthy social elite, or even people in the United States. It almost seems like it is leaving out the uneducated of the countries. Who is writing for the everyday man who works at a farm all day in order to feed his family? It definitely is not the authors that we have been reading.
My thought for this week is what is the point? Why do these authors hide their meaning in-between the lines of their work? Why does it take so much thought just to try to figure out what the author is trying to say? Why doesn't the author just go right out and say it? Wouldn't that be so much easier? Especially with the stuff we've been reading recently. Who is the target audience for this stuff anyways? I dearly hope it is not everyday people of the country. In most the countries we've been studying in Latin America, there is a very low literacy rate, or if the people can read, it is not near the level of these writings. How do the authors expect everyday people to decipher the meanings behind these stories? I wonder if they don't. Maybe these stories instead are targeted toward the wealthy social elite, or even people in the United States. It almost seems like it is leaving out the uneducated of the countries. Who is writing for the everyday man who works at a farm all day in order to feed his family? It definitely is not the authors that we have been reading.
Sunday, March 9, 2014
Response to Grace's Blog
I like how you connected this class with your high school Spanish class! As I was reading your blog I thought that the story was a little bizarre, violent, and depressing as well. This seems to be a bit of a running theme with the pieces that we read in class. I wonder if this shows us something about Latin America though. That their lives were/are full of atrocities like these, and that is why they write about such horrible things. Our lives are so great here in America, I believe we often don't think about the lives of people somewhere else.
Blog #8 Assassination
So over Spring Break my brother and I got to talking about history (big surprise). We talked about all sorts of random things and then got more specific on assassinations when Caesar and Brutus came up. I told him that if he found assassinations interesting he needed to study Mexican history, because as we all know it is chock full of them! He then surprised me by knowing about Zapata and Villa's assassinations, so I asked him where he learned that. He then giddily ran to his room and brought me one of his history books, Assassination- A History of Political Murder. We started flipping through the pages as if we were kids again- sitting next to one another looking at all the pictures and talking. (I'm a little sentimental, can you tell?) Anyways, he gave me the book to look at, so I of course read the section on Zapata and Villa.
In class we talked a lot about Zapata's assassination because of course, we watched Viva Zapata. After reading from this book however, I found Pancho Villa's assassination of more interest. So after Obregon became president, Pancho Villa kind of retired to a ranch in the north. You would think he would just be a happy ol' retired man, sittin' on his front porch, but no. At almost all times Villa had 50 armed bodyguards protecting him. He lived in constant fear of being murdered and was said to do weird things like never let anyone walk behind him. But he was a good member of society, he funded a school for children and was a godfather to many children as well. One of his men had a son and asked Villa to be his godfather, so Villa traveled to a nearby town to do such. On the way there he stopped in Parral, probably to spend time with a mistress. As he was driving on the street, men with rifles were waiting on the rooftops to shoot him. This is the part that intrigues me; the assassins did not shoot Villa that day because a crowd of schoolchildren appeared because school was let out. I am just so surprised by the humanity of the assassins. I feel like whenever I picture assassins I always think of men with no feelings, cold blooded killers. But in the end maybe I'm wrong. These men had orders to kill Villa at this intersection in the road, but they hesitated because of the children. I guess we will never know their true motives, maybe they just didn't want bad publicity if they accidently hit a child. But I would like to think that it was out of the goodness of their hearts that they did not shoot Villa when the children were around. What do you think?
In class we talked a lot about Zapata's assassination because of course, we watched Viva Zapata. After reading from this book however, I found Pancho Villa's assassination of more interest. So after Obregon became president, Pancho Villa kind of retired to a ranch in the north. You would think he would just be a happy ol' retired man, sittin' on his front porch, but no. At almost all times Villa had 50 armed bodyguards protecting him. He lived in constant fear of being murdered and was said to do weird things like never let anyone walk behind him. But he was a good member of society, he funded a school for children and was a godfather to many children as well. One of his men had a son and asked Villa to be his godfather, so Villa traveled to a nearby town to do such. On the way there he stopped in Parral, probably to spend time with a mistress. As he was driving on the street, men with rifles were waiting on the rooftops to shoot him. This is the part that intrigues me; the assassins did not shoot Villa that day because a crowd of schoolchildren appeared because school was let out. I am just so surprised by the humanity of the assassins. I feel like whenever I picture assassins I always think of men with no feelings, cold blooded killers. But in the end maybe I'm wrong. These men had orders to kill Villa at this intersection in the road, but they hesitated because of the children. I guess we will never know their true motives, maybe they just didn't want bad publicity if they accidently hit a child. But I would like to think that it was out of the goodness of their hearts that they did not shoot Villa when the children were around. What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)