Burnaby Library has 2 copies of Viva Zapata.  Kazan, Brando, and Quinn spark chemistry. I had seen the film long time ago and enjoyed it.  This is my drawing of Zapata while I was in Oaxaca, Mexico.

Burnaby Library has 2 copies of Viva Zapata.  Kazan, Brando, and Quinn spark chemistry. I had seen the film long time ago and enjoyed it.  This is my drawing of Zapata while I was in Oaxaca, Mexico.

I’m finding it rather difficult to understand half of what is being said in these writings, mostly due to lack of historical knowledge, but also in the manner that the excerpts are written. So please excuse me as I stumble my way into pulling out ideas to discuss.

I guess I will start with Jefferson’s “Tree of Liberty” letter. There is one sentence that I would love for someone to make clear to me. In relation to rebellions of Massachusetts , he asks “can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted?” The particularly curious part of this it the word “honourably.” On what side of the rebellion is this referring to? The main  thing that I can take away from this letter is that Jefferson is suggesting that rebellion is a natural and necessary part of keeping the government in check, and protecting public liberty. He mentions that the government is “setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.” In other words, trying to prevent further uprisings, uprisings that Jefferson deems a natural part of balancing society.

In regards to Jefferson’s letter to Madison, from my understanding of the last paragraph, he talks about the people going to take the navigation of the Mississippi from Spain and take New Orleans. He asks if it would be a good idea to join forces with these people to “correct our error.” He predicts that the citizens of the US will force the rulers to agree to this, but then says he hopes he is mistaken? So at first I thought he was saying that they should help take New Orleans, but now it seems he is against it?

One thing that caught me in Robespierre’s “Justification of the Use of Terror” is when he says that “Terror is nothing other than justice…it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” He goes on to say how the main principle of a despotic government is terror, but that terror should be used to “subdue the enemies of liberty.” But if you use terror, the main principle of a despotic government, in order to create the Republic, then are you not in turn despotic? He says that the “essence of the republic or of democracy is equality,” but how is using terror against others equality?

Pulling these articles together, they all agree that revolution is something that is necessary for change to occur.

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

Two of the readings were written by Thomas Jefferson so before anything I started off by searching him up. Thomas Jefferson was US 3^rd president, who ran office from 1800-1826. More importantly, he was the author of the Declaration of Independence and of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom. Just from these alone, he already made himself stand out from the former presidents, and this was important.  The title of his letter “Tree of Liberty” made me ponder on its (metaphorical) meaning. The word “tree” comes to me as symbolic of nature, from the ground, with strong roots, growing, and to a certain extent, long lasting. The word “liberty” means freedom. We may look at it through human rights, how much open voice there is for people, but also, as an ideal, as this collective common vision. Also associated with liberty is the notion of peace. One could also think of the “tree of liberty” as the “tree of life”. Another thing mentioned in his letter is rebellions. We often associate them as something negative but in his letter I think he asking us to think of them differently. He sees rebellions as a “wake up call”, a call for change, a signaling that ordinary citizens count. Interestingly not thought of before, they can also be seen as stabilizers, bringing balance and harmony. One last thing I would like to address in his letter is that the 1800s seemed to be a time of national sentiments, unification, and building. To accomplish such things required liberty. So this was a time where social unification and a collective and open-minded project were important. Thomas Jefferson’s other letter addressed to James Madison, also repeats the significance of rebellions. However two quotes that resonated in my mind were when he mentioned that “people have rights to express their grievances over the government” (which is true). However, the question of rights is always a delicate, sketchy, and subjective matter. While thinking about rights as a principle, I came up with an interesting question and that is, in what ways can having rights be both a help and undermine (to governments/life in general)? We always think of rights as fundamentally good. However, having too many rights, people can then sometimes abuse that privilege and be consumed by notions of power and grandiosity, which not only undermines the government, but also society itself. I also liked how he classified societies as those without governments, with governments (that are good), and with governments (though that are bad, or namely, authoritarian). In particular, I liked his comparison of authoritarian governments as governments of wolves over sheep, as it really shows this power differential. Finally,

Robespierre’s letter on terror was somewhat of a reading challenge as to me it seemed as if he was advocating two things that were contradictory to each other. On one side he mentioned terror as a good thing. He said how we need to end the war of liberty, as if, because of liberty (something that we are fighting for), there are lots of violence and suffering, something which Robespierre does not agree with. He says to put an end to the war of liberty, also because it causes tyranny. Furthermore, he then goes on saying that “terror is nothing other than justice, and is a consequence of the general principle of democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs”. Here he seems to be justifying the use of terror, as he sees it as putting an end to unwanted violence. And then, at the end of his letter he’s putting the blame on those who instill revolutionary or hostile ideas and behaviors into people and against the government. And he classifies them as enemies, assassins, instigators, or traitors. Basically, he seems to be against violence and tyranny, and thinks that terror, however, is a good and justifiable thing?? But at the same time, he looks at something completely different. He emphasizes the notion of virtues and names two of them: virtue of love for the country, and virtue of equality. He also says that virtue has to be present in both people and government; that when government lacks virtue it’s okay, but when the people lack virtue, you lose liberty. So now we see him talking about ideals and positive thinking. He also points out “that a nation is corrupt when it goes from being a democracy to an aristocracy or monarchy”. But then again, aristocracy and monarchy both rely on the use of power and suppression, both synonymous to his idealization of reign of terror. And to add one last layer of contradiction, he also mentions what he calls “mercy for humanity”. Despite his seemingly contradictory letter, there are however some interesting points and perspectives of looking at things.