Uncategorized

Class Notes 03/04

Dr. Holt opened today’s class by asking students if they had questions about Friday’s Unit Quiz #2. Students were primarily concerned about the layout of the quiz, as well as clarification on the content. Going forward, today’s class focused on Revolution, as the students were to read and analyze Born in Blood and Fire Chapter 8 (Revolution) before the lecture. Dr. Holt presented the question: What economic, political, and social changes occur in Latin America during and after WWII?, in which the class analyzed for the remainder of the lecture. The main points related to this question were global politics, economics, and societies. We talked about Mexican, Argentine, and Brazilian contributions to WWII. Additionally, we talked about the reactions to the war and the US Marshall Plan. Then, Dr. Holt handed out a map that represented the rise of cities and growth of urban populations after the war. The class then analyzed The Economist: Regional Data on Latin America’s GDP, bringing up discussion on Post War Latin American Economics. The lecture ended with discussion based on Guevara’s memoir and how his experiences connected to these changes. Students brought up the fact that inequality is shown all throughout the memoir, and since Guevara comes from an elite community, his perspective changes by observing different social classes throughout Latin America.

An interesting aspect of today’s lecture was analyzing the two economic competing schools of thought in Latin America after WWII, which include the Liberal Economist view and the Raul Prebisch Dependency Theory. Liberal economists believed that there should be a focus on comparative advantage, which is the idea that a country produces a good or service for a lower opportunity cost than other countries. On the contrary, the Raul Prebisch Dependency Theory focused on the idea that Latin America needed to escape neocolonial relationships and join the industrial center (the United States and Western Europe). In the dependency theory, there was a focus on import-substitution industrialization, which was the opposite of the export-import development that the Liberal Economist view focused more on. The following list of sources goes more in-depth on this topic.

1. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/shared/minitext/ess_dependencia.html
2. https://www.economicsonline.co.uk/Global_economics/Dependency_theory.html
3. https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/depend.htm

Three Questions for Thought:

1. How did Latin America react to the US Marshall Plan?
2. What was the relationship between Latin America and the US after WWII?
3. How did urbanization affect Latin American communities?

Motorcycle Diaries

Reading Question: How Did Che Guevara’s Experience at the San Pablo Leper Colony build into the framework of a Marxist Critique?

On the surface, the reality of the San Pablo leper colony may seem like a reasonable, natural division in society. It certainly was in the 1950s. While Che Guevara had expressed anger at the treatment of working people of lower socio-economic status in his travels, the arbitrary nature of class divisions is clear when the members of each class are not fundamentally different, but are rather the result of a larger social system. Leprosy of course carries with it a real socio-economic disadvantage that places the afflicted at the lowest point in the social hierarchy.

Che’s rejection of this boundary between people, where there is an obvious, yet superficial, physical difference between lepers and non-lepers is the one of the greatest expressions of his commitment to the ideal of egalitarianism. After having witnessed firsthand the stratification of Latin American societies, Che’s gravitation towards revolutionary politics makes a great deal of sense. To correct a system he views as so inherently corrupt, what can be characterized as an “extreme” stance seems to Him, and his fellow revolutionaries in the future, a reasonable one.

Azuela

What does Luis Cervantes represent in The Underdogs?

This time in Mexico was one with an incredible riff between the rich and the poor. The introduction of Luis Cervantes was a strategic move on Azuela’s part in order to show both sides of those who were revolting. It was not only poor ranchers, but also middle class intellectuals who ashamed of the injustices by their government.

Although a progressive move to allow Cervantes into the band, it did not come easily. There was ongoing mistrust between him and the rest. As they question his commitment to the group, Pancracio questioned why they could not “go ahead and shoot ’em dead now…” (20). I think this a good example of real issues that came up between men in the revolution. Azuela himself was a well educated man who was able to flee the fighting, similar to Cervantes.

“Los de Abajo”, Azuela

This novel talks about one Mexican farmer Demetrio from the countryside participating in the Revolution . We could see his travels and interactions with different characters from various backgrounds. The protagonist returned to his town Limon, but was skeptical of the Revolution outcomes. He do not end his fight even the official social movement was ended.

After reading this novel, I would like to raise a question of gender roles back in the 1910s. Many narrations have violent components of those male characters through the story. The writer described a scene of the husband talking as a powerful figure to his wife, showing off how many people they have killed and drinking tequila. Apparently, male dominance and machismo was a widely accepted norms. Women’s presence in the story seemed to reflect “la feminidad” and being caring people.

For instance, at the start of the novel, the wife was yelling at the protagonist from dog braking and told that it must be a man invading. She showed a more caring figure as she told the husband where the rifle was at. Later in the first part, they lady was presented as a weaker figure when the intruders approached. Those men told her to prepare food, as it enforced the idea that women were the ones to prepare food. The wife also acted terrified and emotional to the dog’s death.

From the very first scene of the story, we could see the portrayals of gender roles that reinforce the patriarchy. The wife is more a fragile and emotional figure as expected in society while the men are acting strong and violent, as well as alcoholic.

Azuela

What role do women play in the revolution? How does their role reflect the Spanish ideas of honor that we learned about in the colonial era?

In The Underdogs, the role of women is primarily a domestic one. The novel begins in a domestic setting in which Demetrio’s wife helps her husband hide from the Federales who later demand that she feed them. After they leave, Demetrio sends his wife and their child to his father’s house while he goes to join the revolution. This decision illustrates the gendered ideas of honor that were present in colonial Latin America and beyond where the man is expected to fight and stand up to any injustices especially if they include his family while the women are meant to remain in the domestic sphere.

After Demetrio is shot, he comes into the care of the women in the town they are residing in. They are depicted as care givers but not as genuine players in the revolutionary even though they are helping the rebels. Camilla is also an interesting example of gender because she clearly loves Luis Cervantes but she “belongs” to Demetrio showing that she does not have much agency in her own partnerships.

In part two, we are introduced to the character of War Paint who is described as having a “provocative gaze”. She plays a larger role in the revolution than many other women as she is the one who introduces the men to the idea of “pillaging”. She certainly has more agency than other women but she is still defined at times by her relationship. Camilla also returns and begins to travel alongside Demetrio and in some cases convinces him to help others when he was going to ignore them.   
There are many instances where we can see the different roles that women were supposed to play in the revolution and the idea of “honor” being illustrated in this novel. Overall, women were not seen as soldiers or rebels but rather as caretakers and people who needed protection. Their roles were minimal and limited mainly to nursing men back to health and housing rebels with the exception of a few.

Reading question blog post – The Underdogs

My discussion question: What is the profile of the men fighting for the revolution?

As the article from class you gave us stated and which readers can observe in the novel, the men on the revolutionary side tended to be poor, rural, workers, and farmers. However, obviously there is some diversity in this which can be seen in the characters of the novel. For example, Demetrio Macías is “a poor, illiterate Indian, is forced to join the rebels in order to save his family” (back cover). Later he shares how he had a house, cows, and “small piece of land to sow” (Azuela 39), all which he was very content with. He represents the typical farming peasant who was fighting in the revolution. Another character, Venancio, is a barber who pulls molars and “applied caustics and leeches” but wanted to become a doctor (15, 34). He had to stop his studies because of the death of his parents, but the men look up to him. He represents someone who was unable to achieve his dreams/full potential. At the same time, there is Luis Cervantes who is a medical student and a journalist (20). He comes from a different class and was drafted by the Federales. When they offend him, he deserts and joins the other side. At first, he experiences some ill-will from Demetrio’s men, but they eventually come around to him. He represents someone who was forced by conscription and soon becomes disillusioned, willing to give up his privileges of his class to join the revolution until he moves to the U.S. These characters play into the prototypes of the people who joined the revolutionary and highlight the diversity of motivations and reasons people fought for the revolution.

Azuela

My question is: what does Palomo represent and how is the treatment of Palomo representative of the Revolution?

Palomo is Demetrio’s dog in the beginning of the book. In Spanish, Palomo means pigeon or dove, thus representing innocence. His alarm at the approaching men (5), signifies a danger approaching for his family. Like the onset of the revolution increasing in intensity, so too are Palomo’s barks (5). Palomo’s jumping over the fence heralds the remainder of the book as the start for Demetrio in the revolution. As innocence dies, the revolution begins.

The treatment of Palomo, in a way is representative of the remainder of the book. Palomo’s anger fuels him to jump the fence (6) yet results in tragedy. So too the anger of the characters leads them to band together with the rebels. All of them fighting for different things in the end. Palomo’s anger at the approaching horses is the beginning of Demetrio’s desire for vengeance.

One central message of this book is that there will always be someone below, who will face the treatment from those above. Palomo is a symbol of Demetrio and all the rebels. Once ruled by one person, fighting for a cause only to be later ruled by someone else. In Palomo’s case killed by an invader.