Week Seven

        In class this week, we read a book in Professor Serrata's class called, “The Underdogs.” The book is about a group of men, mostly comprised of peasants and lower class that are fighting in the Mexican Revolution. The main character, Demetrio Macías, begins his journey as a tour of revenge. His house was set on fire by the Federales, and from there on out, the driving factor behind his fighting was to get back at those who wronged him. Most of the other men in his group don't understand the reason they're fighting either-- it seems that they are fighting just to say they did. It isn't until Luis Cervantes, a former federalist and a member of the intellectuals joins their group that they realize they don't have a strong moral behind their fighting. Cervantes calls them out, saying they aren't fighting for revenge, but to get rid of tyranny itself. The book continues with battles and raids, and the reader sees Cervantes and the men transition into people controlled and driven by greed. Cervantes is no longer fighting for a purpose other than his own personal gain. This theme was brought up in one of our discussion questions that asked about the principal irony of “The Underdogs.” The irony is that the men who fight so hard to rid the country of corruption end up adopting it themselves. While answering the question, I thought of the quote from Batman: The Dark Knight. In the movie, Harvey Dent, a hero turned villain, said the famous line "you either die a hero, or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." Similar to what Azuela is saying in “The Underdogs,” the quote means that power is almost always followed by corruption. This is shown in the book when Cervantes becomes greedy after he becomes part of Macías' men. He finally has a sense of power and a stronghold in the revolution, and as a result, believes himself to be invincible to punishment.

Response to Carter

        I also found it surprising that we did not discuss the Mexican Revolution in as much detail as we did with other revolution in High School, especially those in Europe in Asia. The more I think about it, I hardly remember talking about any other nations in Latin America other than Mexico during my World History Class. Granted, that was freshman year of high school, but I don’t believe it was covered in as much detail as problems and events in Europe and Asia. This makes me wonder why it’s not covered in greater detail. Perhaps it’s because of the relationship we’ve had with Latin America. Maybe the United States’ interventionist attitude towards Latin America has made our connection with them rocky, and that’s why it isn’t covered as much.

Week Six

            This week in class we were discussing the Mexican Revolution. Along with this, we watched a movie called Viva Zapata! The film is about Emiliano Zapata, a revolutionary who is trying to overthrow the corrupt government controlled by Porfirio Diaz. The conflict of the film stems around the fact that land was taken away from the small farmers and they wanted to get it back. Diaz, however, said that it would take time and would have to go through the court system. Zapata and his army were successful in getting Diaz out of power, and Francisco Madero took control. After Madero came to power, the rebels were upset to learn that he was not going to return their land quickly either. After Madero’s rule, Zapata gains power and unfortunately falls prey to the power brought along with the presidency.

            This movie made me question the effect that power has on people. It made me wonder if it is inevitable to succumb to the power that comes along with being a leader. Both Madero and Zapata were unable to keep the promises they made before becoming president, and I wonder if this was a common theme among the Mexican presidents. I also related it to modern day politics within the United States. With all the checks and balances, it is often difficult for our presidents to follow through with their promises, often upsetting their supporters and those who helped them get into office. Is this inevitable when someone gains power? Or is there a way to satisfy the masses?

Response to Anna

        I thought your connection between religion and imperialism was really interesting especially since we haven’t talked about it that in-depth during class. I would agree with your statement that much of the United States intervention in the Middle East is because of religion—especially since most of the terrorist groups we aim to disband are oriented around religion. I think the fact that religion plays such a strong part in these radical groups is a reason why they are so dangerous. For example, if a leader of one of these groups dies, there’s still a reason to continue fighting—for their faith. This relates back to one of the discussion questions for the movie Viva Zapata. The old man said that a dead man could be a dangerous enemy, meaning that sometimes the supporters are more radical than the leader.   

Week Five

            In Professor Stark’s part of the class, we discussed United States intervention in Latin American nations. One of the main topics of discussion was in regards to which foreign country would build a canal throughout Central America. After the election of President James Polk, the United States began their interest in Latin America. At this point, US intervention in countries such as Cuba and Haiti became more prominent, and the countries usually didn’t like it. In Haiti, for example, the United States ruled through a series of puppet presidents and even rewrote the Haitian constitution. Obviously, the Haitians were not happy with this. I wondered if perhaps this encounter was the beginning of the rocky relationship the United States has with other countries today? I’m sure there are other events that led to the unstable relationship we have now, but perhaps this resentment towards the United States began when we were trying to “help” the weak Latin American nations.

            This topic of foreign intervention also leads me to wonder how the next few years will be in response to our new president. Political views aside, it is no secret that Trump will not be one of the best communicators when it comes to foreign policy. I imagine that his conversations with Mexican President Enrique Nieto, would be hostile ones considering a large part of his campaign was about building a wall.  I’m curious to see if our relationship with Latin American nations will ever improve, perhaps in the upcoming years after the election of a new president?

Response to Sarah

I liked the comparison you made between former President Roosevelt and our current President Trump. Political views aside, they are both extremely radical in their ideas and actions for change. President Trump, for example, and his recent executive orders caused many Americans to become upset because the US relationship with foreign countries is already rocky. I am curious, however, to see how his executive orders are viewed in the upcoming years. We regard President Roosevelt as perhaps one of the best presidents in American History, but I'm curious how people felt during the time of his presidency and if there is any correlation to the feeling of those currently opposing Trump's orders. I think that the people probably looked up at Roosevelt as a man who would lead them to success based on the time period. I'm not sure, however, if that is the same response President Trump is going to get just because of his traditionalist views in a nation that is (or rather was) becoming more accepting.

Week Four

            This week in class, we talked about race and the impact that it had on newly independent Latin American countries. In Professor Stark’s class we spent a lot of time talking about Cuba and their fight for independence. I found it interesting that most of Cuban defeats were because Spain turned the Cuban war for independence into race wars. Spain was able to divide the people of the country and put them against each other based on their different races. I also found it surprising that people had different ideas of what race was. Some people saw it as a classification based on the color of one’s skin, some thought it was classified by being cultured and uncultured, and others did not even consider the idea of there being separate races.

            I found our discussion of race, specifically when reading Jose Martí’s “My Race,” something that could be applied to nowadays. Although some would beg to differ, there are still racists in the United States today. Martí, however, says that there essentially are no races, and that everyone is united under one nation.

             From personal experience, I recently went to a restaurant when I was home over Christmas Break, and encountered a group of men who ordered after me. While I was waiting for my food, I heard them start yelling, saying that they weren’t going to be served by a black man (although they used a more derogatory term instead). I was so surprised and upset that even in our age, there are still people who are unable to look past skin color and are willing to make a scene to express their “superiority.”