I believe this week’s topic is the topic for my group for the video and research assignments! I hope I was able to interpret it correctly to apply it to our upcoming projects, and I definitely look forward to reading what my classmates have made of the information in this week’s readings as well. I found the Che Guevara letter quite interesting as it highlighted the main goals of the revolution and mentioned where the process needed to improve. The Paz excerpt provided insight into the individuality of the revolutionary process, something that Guevara in his letter mentioned was at the core of the revolution (if done right). Finally, I thought the Sánchez blog posts were a really good addition to this chapter. We haven’t seen too many recent primary documents (I think the only other one was the Chávez speech?), despite the theme that all the patterns we see in this course are still relevant today and still have modern implications and legacies in Latin America.

I keep thinking of the term “revolutionary process.” Based on what I’ve read, I believe Cuba’s revolution really was a process, and Dawson argues this as well. I think this is one of the main themes we’ve explored throughout the semester as well. Revolutions may begin with a conflict between the suppressed and the people in power, but they don’t really end with the overthrow of power. Revolution is really composed of a process including the fighting, establishment of a new leader, reforms, and most important to understanding thematic patterns, the legacy and underlying remains of the revolutionary process.

Guevara’s letter outlines the founding themes of the revolutionary process while Paz’ “El Lobo, el Bosque, y el Hombre Nuevo” explains how those themes affect individuals and their involvement in the revolution. Both of these documents seem a little distant and dated compared to Sánchez’ blog posts. While they do provide a good example of revolutionary (and counter-revolutionary) mindsets during the height of the revolutionary process under the Castro regime, they show only a small slice in the timeline of revolutionary patterns. Sánchez proves that the revolution remains in Cuba and her activism online allows for the world to take notice. Sánchez’ posts are mostly critical of the revolution, as in they oppose or disagree with many of the outcomes the revolutionary process has caused. As a closing note, this leads me to wonder, with every revolution and its continuing legacy, will there be an influential critical or counter-revolutionary legacy like there seems to be in Cuba? And does this clash further fuel the influence and longevity of the revolution?