My Response to Grace's Blog 7

Grace,

Wow, how interesting! I really enjoyed learning about and singing “La Cucaracha” as well. I never knew what the real meaning of “Yankee Doodle” was until I read your blog. I just thought it was a silly song that they taught us as children. I never knew there was a deeper political meaning behind the goofy lyrics. I wonder why we continue to teach the song even though it was used by the British to make fun of us. I wonder if the teachers even know what they are teaching their students when they teach them to sing Yankee Doodle. I also wonder if Spanish children sing “La Cucaracha” in school… probably not.

Blog 7: Assassinations during the Mexican Revolution

Assassinations during the Mexican Revolution

During Professor Stark’s lecture on the Mexican Revolution, he mentioned that in all of the assassinations that took place during the Mexican revolution, the assassins were unknown and never found. I thought it was interesting that the people said, “Quien mato a Villa? Callese y portese bien!”, saying that Calles was responsible for the assassination of Villa.  I decided to do some research about some of the conspiracy theories of the other assassinations.  Over the course of the Mexican Revolution, Madero, Zapata, Carranza, Villa and Obregon were all powerful leaders that were assassinated.

The Madero assassination was ordered by Huerta. The conspiracy theory is that he ordered the guards to shoot him as well the Vice President. They were arrested and the soldiers who were guarding them said that Madero was trying to escape and used that as an excuse to shoot him. Because everyone knew that Huerta was behind it, the United States even refused to recognize his government, despite the fact that their ambassador, Wilson, was involved in helping Huerta come to power.

The assassination of Zapata was ordered by President Carranza. Carranza sent Colonel Jesús Guajardo to arrange a meeting with Zapata and said he would give him more ammunition and supplies. Zapata was tricked and trapped. Guajardo’s men surrounded him and shot at him from the roofs of buildings.

Carranza was actually assassinated in his sleep. He was traveling from Mexico City to Vera Cruz when his train was attacked and he was forced to travel overland. A local chieftain named Rodolfo Herrera took him and his men in. Herrera supposedly shot him and his key advisors and supporters in their sleep.  Obregon put Herrera on trial but he was acquitted.

 

 

 

The assassination of Villa remains a mystery still today. His car was ambushed in the street by assassins and shot over 40 times. As previously discussed, many Mexicans believed Calles ordered his assassinations. Villa had many other enemies though. These included Obregon, who fought against him in many battles, Melitón Lozoya, who owed Villa a large amount of money, Jesús Herrera, whose sons were murdered by Villa, and many others whose family members were killed in cold blood by Villa.

I found the assassination of Obregon to be the most interesting. After Obregon was elected president, there was a banquet held in his honor. At the banquet, a young man, named José de León Toral, posing as a caricaturist drew a skillful sketch of Obregon and presented it to him. Toral pulled a gun out and shot him several times. Toral was a Cristero soldier who did not like Obregón’s suppression of the Catholic church.

 

 

 

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

I completely agree with you Lauren! What a great connection between Zapata and the Palmares! In both movies, people stand up to their oppressors. Slaves run away and form a fugitive slave community in Palmares. Peasants stand up and fight against rich planters and elites with Zapata as their leader. Even though many of the people living in Palmares are killed and Zapata is killed, their legacy lives on. They still bring hope to their followers. This makes it almost a happy ending which makes me almost happy.

Blog 6: Zapata and Women's Rights

While doing a little extra research on Emiliano Zapata, I stumbled across something very interesting. Zapata actually allowed women to join his army as combatants. He had large numbers of women fighting for him in the revolution. Some were even officers! These female soldiers were called “soldaderas”.  I did a little more research and found that soldaderas played a very important role in the Mexican revolution. They fought for both the federal army and rebels like Zapata’s army.

Their main roles were transporting goods, equipment, and ammunition, cooking, setting up camp, and caring for the soldiers as a mother or wife would.  They also raided bodies of dead soldiers for valuable goods. These female soldiers also served as nurses caring for and treating wounded soldiers. Because it was harder for women to defend themselves, many lost their lives helping the male soldiers. Interestingly, they also were used to smuggle ammunition and medicine to Mexico from the United States. No one suspected them because they were women. I wonder why they had to smuggle in supplies. Wouldn't the United States want to make money by selling supplies? Anyways back to women...

Zapata actually allowed women to fight alongside him in battle. I am surprised because this is not shown in the movie at all. They may not have shown it because they either did not know about it or there just weren’t that many battle scenes. Many Mexican feminists see women’s role in the Mexican revolution as a milestone in women’s rights. I think women should be allowed to fight in combat if that is what they wish to do.

 

My Reaction to Elena's Blog #5: Education in the United States

Elena,

I completely agree with you, I think the United States' education system definitely needs some changes. We were left behind about the United States’ intervention in Latin America. While taking this course, I have learned about many things that we were left behind about. Christopher Columbus is a great example. I was so confused to learn that he did not in fact discover that the world was round nor was he the first to sail to the Americas. It was common knowledge that the world was round in his time and the Americas were discovered hundreds of years before he sailed the ocean blue in 1942. Why are children still being taught that he made these great discoveries? Why don’t teachers teach history from both points of view? Our history is always taught from an eurocentric point of view and its biased. We are never taught the whole story. I have learned so much about history now that I know both sides of the story.

Blog 5: Marti

Today's debate inspired me to write my blog about the idea of a "raceless" nation. Image what Cuba would be like today if it had achieved Marti's goal of Cuba Libre and achieved true racial equality... What would a raceless nation be like? Some people like to say that the United States has achieved racial equality but I don't know about that...Yes we have come a long way but I don't think that we are quite there yet. Why does every job application, college application, and every other application for that matter ask you about your ethnicity? If race truly was irrelevant then why should that question be asked? I still think people are judged by their race and races have stereotypes in this country. For example, the twitter account "typical white girl" is full of stereotypes of average white teens. We stereotype people everyday with out even realizing it. Do you think it would even be humanly possible to create a raceless nation? Would it be possible for people to be judged not by the color of their skin but by the person they are? I wish it would be. I felt very strongly about supporting Marti in today's debate. I really love  his ideas and know that there is a lot of truth to them. We all have souls that yearn for the same things and in working together to achieve the same goal, we are united. One historical example of this is the way Nelson Mandela  used South Africa's rugby team to end the apartheid. To the South Africans, the white rugby team was a symbol of the apartheid, racial segregation. Despite the overwhelming majority's push to decommission the Springbocks, which had all white players and one black player, Nelson Mandela let them play and supported them. The team started doing really well and Nelson Mandela attended every game. The black South Africans began to support the team along with the white South Africans. The races of South Africa were united in rooting for the Springbocks in the National Championship. Now I know rugby is much different than a war of independence but it is the same idea. When people are working together and rooting for the same team to accomplish the same goal, they are united. I think that if the United States had not intervened, the people of Cuba would have been able to accomplish Cuba Libre. I think Marti makes a very strong point when he says that they both die together fighting and their souls rise up together. This sent a powerful message to Cubans and I think we can all learn from Marti. If these people were both willing to fight and die for something, they are worthy of equal treatment. I hope that maybe someday we can reach true racial equality and achieve a raceless nation.

My response to Elena's Blog # 4: The image of Cecilia Valdes

Elena,

The story of Cecilia Valdes was one of my favorites too! I was also disturbed a little bit by the way twelve-year-old Cecilia is described in the novel. I agree that the author used Cecilia as a metaphor for mulatto women in Cuban society. I think he also uses the story to shed light on some of the corrupt ways of the white elites. For example, Cantalapiedra, who is the commissioner of the district of El Angel, is at the party and tries to dance with Cecilia. He is portrayed as very irresponsible and foolish. He gets drunk and makes himself vomit in order to continue eating at the party. I think the  commissioner could be another metaphor for Cuban society; he represents the white elites. I think this story is full of metaphors about Cuban society.

Blog number 4: Spoiler Alert: this blog contains spoilers

I loved Cecilia Valdés because I love romance and of course I was curios about the ending of the love story. If you are planning on reading the rest of the story, don't read my blog. Cecilia ends up falling in love with Leonardo. The two become lovers but plot twist: Leonardo is Cecilia's half brother. Her father is Candido de Gamboa, a wealthy upper class white man. Leonardo is his legitimate son. Unfortunately, neither of them know this and they have a son. Later Leonardo leaves Cecilia for a white upper class woman, Isabel Ilincheta. They are engaged and plan to get married. Meanwhile, poor Pimienta is still in love with Cecilia. She has him assassinate Leonardo on the day of his wedding. Pimienta is then executed and Cecilia sent to prison.
 I couldn't help but notice some similarities between this story and the story of Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare. Both Romeo and Juliet and Cecilia and Leonardo meet and fall in love at a party. Both couples are not supposed to be together. Romeo and Juliet's families are enemies of each other. Cecilia and Leonardo come from different social classes. Cecilia is a mulatta and illegitimate child. Leonardo a white upper class man. They are also half siblings.   Both Juliet and Cecilia have other men pursuing them. Juliet is being pursued by Paris, kin of the king. She was supposed to marry him. Pimienta is madly in love with Cecilia and gives up his life for her. Both end in tragedy. Juliet fakes her death when Romeo is banished and he poisons himself. When she wakes up, she finds him dead and kills herself. Pimienta murders Leonardo for Cecilia and as a result is executed, and she spends the rest of her life in prison. The difference is Romeo wanted to be with Juliet forever; Leonardo left Cecilia for another women. Paris, the man Juliet rejected, was killed by Romeo. Pimienta, the man Cecilia rejected, killed Leonardo. Both are tragic love stories. I wonder if Cirilo Villaverde ever read any Shakespeare...