When discussing these weeks reading the one that stood out to me the most was The Plan de Ayala. The reason this stood out so much has to do with the way it was written. This text was written as a manuscript and some form of legal document, one crucial element to it also pertains to how it is in steps. The idea of having a plan for the country in a direct format makes it easier for citizens to comprehend. Also as the Zapatios main audience were indigenous communities in Mexico as that is who connected with them more often. Having a legal document in a simpler format makes it easier to understand for those communities who are not as well educated as those who live in the big cities. I believe this to be intentional as a way to get to lower class of Mexico onto their side.
Often the more rural side of Latin America is neglected when it comes to discussing and informing them on how their countries are going to be run. This gives them more of the opportunity to comprehend what will be taking place when this group is in power. Although this group may be taking government by force they are still informing Mexico on what they plan to do. They do not need to tell them but they are doing it out of an understanding for what the majority of the Mexican community feels.
This all ties into how modernity and economic growth is not equal all throughout Latin America and some regions feel it more than others. That some countries capitals may be considered modern, that other rural areas in that country still lack the basics of what modernity is. This is an ongoing process and not all areas will be going at the same pace. Therefore I think documents such as The Plan de Ayala should be used when every political party lays out their values and ideals. As it makes things easier for those in the rural areas of Latin America.
- Would you prefer if legal documents were in the same format as the readingThe Plan de Ayala was in?
- Is this a correct way to inform your citizens ?
October 28, 2020 — 9:55 am
Samantha, thanks for this, though I need to remind you that these blogs are due at the beginning of the week (Mondays), not halfway through.
Note also that the correct word is “Zapatista,” not “Zapatio.”
And I wonder what leads you, in reading the text, to think that its “main audience were indigenous communities”? What does the text actually say about its intended readership (and the fact that it is a readership should give you a clue)?
October 29, 2020 — 9:17 pm
I agree with you in that the “Plan de Ayala” document stood out to me as well, particularly because of their straightforward approach. However, I don’t agree that it was created in it’s simple format because people living in rural areas could understand it. What I mean is that the people in the countryside didn’t necessarily have such lower education that would impede them from understanding the document. Instead, perhaps the “Plan de Ayala” was written in such way because that is what constitutes a legal form.
October 30, 2020 — 12:21 pm
I really liked your insight on the format of the Plan de Ayala. As much as I enjoyed being able to easily comprehend what Zapata wanted to put forward, I also think that it would be a difficult request to have all other documents to be in this format. Many legal documents aren’t intended to be shared with the public, so with that in mind I don’t think that they all must be simplified for the public’s understanding. Furthermore, you mentioned that it would be useful to get the lower class on his side, but wouldn’t their literacy rate be rather low compared to the upper class? If that’s the case, would he have another motive to right it like this?