Response to Caitlin's Blog #8 Assassinations

This is a very interesting story.  I am also surprised at the humanity of the assassins and how they avoided shooting into a group of children in order to kill Pancho Villa.  When you think of almost all other assassinations the shooting was done in very public places in front of many people.  Some examples I can think of off the top of my head are JFK, President Lincoln, and the Archduke Franz Ferdinand.  All three assassinations were done in very public places were innocent people could be injured, and some were.  But on the other hand, I can see why the assassins didn't shoot into the group of children to get to Villa.  For the first part, children are seen as innocent and not worthy of such harsh cruelty, which saves them from some cruel acts.  Another option is that the men lived in the town and had connections to the children.  Information didn't travel anywhere near as fast as it does today, so in order to catch Villa off guard, they had to be ready at a moments notice to get the chance at taking his life.  That would make it much more likely that the men were from that town and thus didn't want to shoot at their children or people that they knew.  Overall, I think there are many different things that could have kept the men from shooting Villa when they first had the chance, and unfortunately we will never know the complete truth.

Blog 8: The Countryside: Past or Present?

Something that seemed really interesting to me in our last discussion in class about the story "The South" was the idea of the countryside representing the past and the city representing the present.  Borges makes note throughout the story that "The South," or the countryside, makes up the past.  While Juan Dahlmann is traveling to his house in the country he watches as the city slowly fades away until he is in the countryside where the gaucho lives and the way of life there is very different.  He see's different things in nature that he doesn't normally see and it captivates him.  Growing crops was a way of life in the countryside where it isn't in the city, and that fact he knows nothing about it forces him to think of it in an unfamiliar way.  One of the greatest reminders that emphasize that the countryside is in the past is the use of physical violence to solve disputes.  In the cities, things are settled more diplomatically with the outside forces making decisions, but the countryside is forced to settle disputes however they can best do that, and physical violence was most often chosen.  Juan confronts the men that were taunting him verbally, and they in turn challenge him with physical violence.  It wasn't in Juan's way of thinking to immediately start with physical violence, but it is for the men from the countryside.  Violence and brute force are connected with the past because they were old ways of maintaining control and keeping order, but in the current time people had been perceived to have moved forward with a non-violent way of solving problems.

The idea of the country being stuck in the past brought up the reminder that many believe it still is today.  Farming is considered by a large amount of people as the old way of life, along with the ways of the cowboys.  While the farming industry has modernized by leaps and bounds, it is still given the stereotypical assumption that it is backwards and stuck in the past.  My big question is why that is.  Why does the countryside get the idea that it is the past while the city is the present?

Response to Lauren's Blog 7: The Underdog's final moments.

I had some trouble with the ending too because of how open-ended it was. To me it felt like from the very beginning that Azuela thought that the revolution was inevitable. The men were always fighting, even when they didn't know what they were fighting for. Demetrio was the leader, but didn't know what he was leading toward or why. That makes me think that it was inevitable because they were just fighting to fight. The end I saw as a more positive ending for Demetrio because he never ran from the fight and fought to the death, which is an honored way to die for many people, but thinking back on it now I see it differently. The ending can also be seen as another example of how the revolution was inevitable. Demetrio didn't know what he was fighting for but died for it anyway, making war an inevitable part of his life he could never escape from.

Blog 7: The Importance of Murals

While thinking about a mural I have seen before for last weekends discussion questions, I thought of a mural from Lansing (where I'm from).  Lansing has a large African American population, and much of the street art and murals reflect that heritage.  One mural in particular caught my attention because of all the famous people in it.

In the picture above you see two different murals, one new and one old, but they both represent the same thing.  The murals were commissioned by the owners to represent the Equal Rights movement in the United States.  The owners were proud of their heritage and wanted others to appreciate the work the people put into making the U.S. a better place for all people.  Some of the major figures include: President Obama, Michael Jackson, Condoleezza Rice, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Looking at these murals emphasized for me what the murals in Mexico did for the people.  Many murals now-a-days don't hold the same importance to the people with their subjects, but others do. This equal rights movement affected people of all classes and races, altering view and perceptions.  The same can be said about the murals in Mexico.  Artists like Diego Rivera, José Orozco, and David Siqueiros all used their art to convey messages to the people and alter their views on different subjects.  Whether they were country people or city people, educated or uneducated, Mexican murals affected each group in different ways, but conveyed a higher sense of nationalism to all groups.

I feel that this painting by David Siqueiros really represents the idea of the murals affecting all the people of Mexico.  In just the first row, you see soldiers, as well as a woman, who look ready to enter battle for the revolution.  If you look closely throughout the painting, you see the people wearing different style and colored hats, representing their different backgrounds. They all may have different backgrounds with beliefs that clash, but they come together to fight for revolution that benefits them all.

Response to Lauren's Blog 6: The Next Palmares?

This was a really great connection!  The aspect I can really see the connection with is the fact that both groups have leaders that die, but the people continue to fight for what they believe in.  The leaders were who got the oppressed people rallied around a singular cause, but even after the leaders died, their ideals were carried out by the people.  It goes to show that a group is only has strong as its weakest link, and one link can't keep everything together.  Everyone must be strong in order to achieve the goals of the whole group.

Blog 6: What do you fight for?

While reading "The Underdogs" by Mariano Azuela, I was moved by the speech Luis Cervantes  made to Demetrio Macías about what he was really fighting for.  Luis pointed out that Demetrio needed a broader view of the revolution and not to concentrate on making his part of the country better and fixing its problems.  Demetrio was focused on fighting what he thought was one man that had done him wrong, and in doing so narrowed his view to just that part of the country.  It is pointed out to him by Luis that things will never change for his people for the better if he doesn't fight the source of the problem and not just the leader.  New leaders with the same values will continue to take control as soon as the old leaders are ousted, and nothing with change.  

Luis's motivation is to fight the idea rather than the person implementing it.  In other words, he wants to fight the idea of tyranny instead of just the tyrant.  Luis encourages Demetrio to go and join the bigger revolution going on in the country because it will help the cause against the idea rather than just the leader.

This idea of fighting the idea rather than the leader is something I think can be used in many situations.  Whenever you are trying to fight to change something, it is always better to fight the idea rather that the person.  A person can change their ideas and minds quickly, switching from one side to another, but if you prove to them that the idea is wrong and not just them, it will be easier to accept.  In the end a nice life lesson can be learned from this: criticize ideas, not the person carrying them out.

Response to Stephanie's blog #5

I thought all the propaganda shown was really interesting.  It really drives the point that every situation, war, and complication in history is never as it seems.  Everything can be looked at from a different view point, and can be seen as good or bad based on that.  In reference to the Spanish American War, from the U.S.'s point of view Spain is the barbaric and ruining country because the supposedly blew up the Maine. While from Spain's point of view the U.S. is the enemy and barbaric group.

Propaganda in different countries can really change the course of war or other problems.  Without its use many people in the countries would not know what was going on and wouldn't support the different causes.  The support of the people can mean the difference between winning a war and losing.  In addition, propaganda can be used to sway the readers opinions to what the writer wants it to be, and not whether it is right or not.  That ability has lead many people to make bad decisions in who they support (a.k.a. Nazi propaganda).