The Country Under My Skin by Gioconda Belli is definitely the most “biographical” of all the works we have seen so far, with the Nicaraguan Revolution of 1979 acting as an ever present backdrop to Belli’s very eventful life. However, Belli’s passion for and dedication to the Sandinista movement – from when she first truly comes into contact with it through her advertisement colleagues until she grows disillusioned with its handling of the Nicaraguan state following the ousting of Somoza’s government – is definitely one of the key driving points in this autobiography. It also comes as a bit of a surprise considering her comfortable bourgeois upbringing, something which is frequently brought up during her time with the Sandinistas. Along with the fact that Belli led a seemingly normal life and professional existence in parallel to her revolutionary activities, she comes across as quite distant from the ideal of the revolutionary fighter whose commitment to the revolution is “total”, as embodied by Che.

However, the strength of Belli’s belief in the revolution and the importance of her role within it definitely give her credibility as a revolutionary figure, and also offered her a unique perspective on the Nicaraguan Revolution itself. Her brutal honesty in telling about her difficulties in maintaining both a stable family life and participating as much as possible in revolutionary activities, as well as her account of the mistreatments and humiliation she received for being a woman within the movement offer some insights into the complexities that can and have occurred when one lives as a revolutionary.  I was also surprised by how honest she was about her own thoughts at given moments, openly describing the times in which her faith for the revolution waivered, or when she felt that she was failing her children. Belli comes across as deeply human and relatable in these moments, and it gives all the more weight to her decision to keep on working for the revolution in spite of her occasional doubts.

The end of The Country Under My Skin also provides Belli’s impressions on how and why the Nicaraguan Revolution and the Sandinistas eventually failed. She places particular emphasis on the responsibility of both the Reagan administration and the line taken by the Ortega brothers in directing the new Sandinista government. Her criticism of the United States’ blatant hypocrisy in indicting the Nicaragua’s lack of democratic institutions while simultaneously supporting neighbouring dictatorships and helping build the Contra forces is pretty difficult to argue with, and is equally valid to the case of Cuba. The Ortega brothers, in further goading Reagan were probably righteous in their ideological position, but in practice their actions only served to exacerbate the impact of the United States actions against Nicaragua, worsening the situation for its citizens and setting up the Sandinistas downfall. This critique of the revolution outlines both the difficulty of building a new revolutionary society and the danger that US imperialism posed any of its adversaries in Latin America at that time.

Country Under My Skin illuminates a few aspects of the revolution that have been more difficult to see in other readings. It is an account full of political posturing, ugliness, idealism and provides what feels like a truthful image of the movement as seen by a young woman. What really made the book a pleasure to read though was her pure passion for social change and confidence that the Sandinistas would succeed despite all that seemed to be working against her. Again and again she pushes through some really crazy situations to keep fighting for the cause.

One of the valuable insights Belli was able to provide was the complexity of interpersonal relationships for someone involved in the organizing of a revolution. Her stories of a strained relationship with her kids, her discussions of love/desire and the strength of her support networks work well to humanize the revolutionaries in a way that we have not read about yet. Her account helps the reader to understand the depth at which the struggle functions, illuminating both the personal and the political. It also constructs an honest representation of the characters in her life as she speaks of average people making huge contributions and important leaders with profound character flaws. Most notably, her descriptions of Omar Torrijos and Fidel Castro work to demystify and illuminate a more complete, and often unattractive view of them as people.

Another perspective that I appreciated in the book was her descriptions of the role that the United States played in Nicaragua. As someone intimately involved in the overarching logistics of the struggle she is able to provide key insights into the perception on the ground of US involvement. Her book does a good job of describing how vital the US was to sustaining the Somoza regime and the brutal violence he (and they) inflicted on the Nicaraguan people. Her description of how the US eventually had to publicly pull back support is interesting as well. She tells of the assignation of Bill Stewart and how this was “the hard evidence of what the Nicaraguan people were living with day in and day out.” It really forces the reader to think about to how the mainstream media’s dehumanization of violence against the global south/people of color works to sustain/invisableize atrocities. Overall, I thought the book was very interesting and I am interested to see what others have to say about it in class tomorrow.

This week we were assigned to read the novel The Country Under My Skin by Gioconda Belli. I found this novel interesting in its ability to really humanize the revolution. I say this in the sense that it shows us a side of the revolution that is often missing in the previous texts such as those written by Che. Belli’s personal account of the Sandinista revolution gives us an insight into the mind of a Sandinista at the time. This I think is very important because it shows us how revolutions are shaped by the minds of the people who are fighting, and those that they support. Additionally I found it interesting how Belli’s story is one of not only revolution but also of love. The explanations of her love life and her multiple affairs that she has throughout the course of the revolution portray a deep emotional struggle that I found paired very well with the armed struggle that she engages in.

Belli’s upbringing is also I think important to bring up because it gives us insight into many “wealthy” individuals are often times the initial members of a revolutionary vanguard. This is interesting because when we look through all past revolutionary movements this seems to be a continuous pattern of members of the bourgeoisie being influential individuals within the revolution. This trend can thus be likely attributed to the fact that it is bourgeoisie who has the luxury of time, and thus the ability to read literature such as Marx and Engels. Therefore it is inevitable that a small portion of the bourgeoisie will “enlighten themselves” and shift their allegiance to the proletariat. This is important because it is these revolutionary individuals who are so often at the forefront of the revolutionary struggle. This however does not mean that proletarians are unable to read such literature and educate themselves. Rather what occurs is that the economic exploitation of the bourgeoisie renders the proletariat with little to no time to spend on such activities. As a whole, proletarians must shift their focus to bills, housing, caring for their families etc. and this leaves no time available for them to become “class conscious”. Again this barrier is an intentional one set up by the bourgeoisie so as to prevent the working class from understanding their ideological and class system, which acts as a deterrent to revolution. This is why Belli’s transition from an upper class Nicaraguan to a revolutionary fighter is so important, because she provides part of the initial basis of the guerilla group which is so often hard to develop in its initial stages.

All in all, I feel this autobiographical account of the Sandinista movement does a good job at humanizing the revolution and intertwining aspects of love within the revolution.

In class we’ve so far been reading novels that tell of different revolutions through the lens of one or a group of people. This has had limitations, and several times I got lost or could not really see how the revolution was portrayed. We just read people’s thoughts that are so random and all over the place. Despite this being the longest of all, Country Under My Skin, was a novel that I quite enjoyed reading. I could actually see in chronological order how the Nicaraguan revolution unfolded. Although this novel was told by one person and hence subjective, the language was less poetic or ambiguous, and there was less dialogue, making it easier for me to follow through and understand. But enough about the practical and structural part of the book. My appreciation of the book also came from some of the quotes and events of the story. To begin, the book starts off with something that I found quite interesting. It describes Nicaragua with words such as “brisk wind, clear sky, perfect day for going to the beach, lounging on the grass beneath a tree, gazing out at the Caribbean”. Then immediately after this there is a contrast where it says “instead I found myself at a shooting range with a group of Latin American guerrillas with my AK-47, and behind me was Fidel Castro”. I found this introduction to the novel quite interesting as we are presented with two realities of Latin America; one imaginary and the other more realistic. Often we have these tropes that describe Latin America as lush, peaceful, sunny, very exotic. And yet, the author, or Gioconda, quickly corrects that and tells us a more realistic and upsetting aspect of Latin America, that of combat. She is practicing for the day when the revolution is to come, a revolution where Nicaraguans, like other Latin American people, are trying to fight for change. What Gioconda is telling us immediately is that Latin America is not as romanticized as we make of it, there are people who suffer dictatorships and poverty and who trying very hard to the best that they can to stop this. Instead, we are shown a Latin America that is in a state of impoverishment, hardship and struggle. And this is something that we must always remember, even up to this day. Now steering more towards the topic of revolution, page 5 I found quite interesting. It talked about patriotism and this iconic figure of Fidel Castro. “We are the soliders who will free the Motherland….It was listening to that song that I first experienced the call of patriotism”. I liked this quote because it gives us a different look at revolutions. We’ve so far been predominantly looking at revolutions as an instrument of bringing change. Here we are also told how it is related to patriotism, that this is also about unification, protecting the country, being proud about one’s country and the love for it. I think a revolution has to have a love for one’s country in order for it to start, or even in order for people to see that change is needed, otherwise people wouldn’t care. What I found more interesting was then the iconization of Castro. “To me Fidel was a romantic hero”. But what I found more interesting was then how she admits that people say so many different things about him that she doesn’t know what to think. Just like in the introduction about imaginaries of Latin America, here Gioconda is also being critical and honest. One last quote worth mentioning is on page 24 when she defines the Sandinismo movement saying that “it is a particular ideology that was a mélange of New Left socialism, cooperativism, and popular democracy, that it claimed to be the successor to General Sandino’s nationalist legacy”. Then she goes on to say “But, they didn’t seem like a real alternative for us. They were guerrillas. They advocated armed struggle, violence, socialism”. Here is another time she gives us this contrast, this “two sides for every one thing”. What I liked then afterwards was how she openly and strongly said how it was different from communism. Page 276 “we aren’t communists, fighting the label the United States had pinned on us. And it was the truth: for all Marxism and Leninism we had studied, we had different dreams for Nicaragua, we wanted a new kind of socialism, Nicaraguan, libertarian”. Further down she says “we wanted a new kind of revolution that would be original and open, the product of a tropical, irreverent left-wing movement”. And yet, even this example once again shows how Gioconda is challenging people’s ideas of Nicaragua, that Nicaragua is unique, different and has its own problems and patriotism worth fighting. These were some of the quotes I found interesting. But there were a lot more. One last thing I really enjoyed about this novel was it appeared to be framed from a feminist stand, and yet despite this, Gioconda maintained a level of objectivity. She told throughout the novel, problems that she faced such as men, love, family, divorce, job, being a soldier, and her emotions. In the end we find out that life for a woman in Latin America, is not that easy, once again challenging our notions of how things are in life. It is this challenge that she presents to us, that I found quite “refreshing” and I learned a lot more about what life was like in a Latin American revolution, from this book, than any other book we’ve read. Truly a book that I would recommend to others.

One of the things this book does well is show us the interpersonal relationships behind or maybe I could say that comprise a revolutionary movement. We are often given accounts of the narrator’s first impressions of people. At one point she remarks that a woman she met resent her at first and then grows to love her. Here, we are actually given a lot of information about the atmosphere this revolution takes place in.

When the narrator first discusses Humberto we get a glimpse into the difficulty of positioning ones self into the complex personal relationships that contribute to the success or failure of this movement. She is not fond of him, she even remarks on how he skillfully evades the questions he does not feel like answering and notes the rhetoric that posits ambiguity as an integral part of the revolution and even as a natural. While I would never argue that ambiguity is unnecessary, of course it is in many cases, it is precisely that assumption that allows it to be abused at different times.

Something else I found fascinating was the narrator’s account of second-guessing herself, or questioning her own intelligence when she disagrees with Humberto. When he says, “if shit is what we need to make the revolution happen, shit is what we’ll use,” which is so obviously a horrible thing to say and completely erases all of the harmful things that can and are done in the name of “revolutions” (which often gets defined by so few individuals) the narrator goes so far as to remark, “I even toyed with the idea that his tolerance was the sign of a political wisdom that I lacked.” This reaction can certainly be attributed to an overall sense of insecurity that can affect any person. It is natural to second-guess ones self or to question one’s ability. However, I think my analysis would be lacking if I did not at least acknowledge the fact that often these feelings of insecurity arise from a complex set of social relations. You might second guess yourself because you are the minority in the room, because you occupy a lower rank than the person who disagree with, because you have less experience, and the list goes on. This is, in a sense, what I mean when I bring up intersectionality in class. We do ourselves and the texts we are reading a disservice when we commit to the most cursory analysis we can make.

When the narrator suggests that they should write a letter detailing their specific unease with Humberto’s plan he i told to, “write it herself,” which could be read as evidence of her skill, or it could be read as evidence of laziness on the part of her peers.

From the texts we’ve read so far in this course Fire From the Mountain is my favorite (although I still haven’t finished reading all of it). I greatly enjoyed Omar Cabezas’ style of writing that I found to be brutally honest. The power of Che is evident in the book since in the beginning we see that Omar and his university friends, as well as in the mountain, strived to be more like Che. It was incredible to see the movement start from four students to win the elections at the university through hard work. It was eye opening to see how underground the movement was and how one had to do everything in secrecy. I found a parallel with The Underdogs in which the revolution is described like a hurricane. Cabezas describes the movement like entering a whirlwind, inside a never-ending whirlwind. Omar says that becoming a part of the movement was the end of his childhood, since you are in it until victory or death. I also got the sense at the beginning of the book that revolutions can and are fun! For example, Omar states that “with publicity we saw ourselves as much bigger than we really were”, and the devious acts such as robbing supplies and defying authority must have been an enjoyable aspect of starting the movement. Also it was great to see the relationship between the vanguard and the guerilla, since the armed forces gave spiritual fight to the vanguard, as Omar states. Furthermore, once Omar is in the mountains as a part of the guerilla he says he felt safe because he new that the student movements and people in the city were mobilizing and this gave him strength. It was also great to see how Omar adapts to life in the mountain as a guerilla fighter. At the start, when he just joins the first camp, Omar is perplexed to see around only 15 people split into groups and he thinks to himself “mother of god, what have I don’t”, as if he got involved in something that has no future. This speaks to the dangers of a revolutionary group that contains so few numbers. Omar also learns at the beginning how important the use of language is, and specifically states that colloquial language and the use of swear words greatly enhances one’s chance at getting to the masses to understand more fully the movement. Lastly, as we have already seen with armed forces in our texts the difficulty of being a part of one is emphasized. The biggest one for Omar was loneliness. Making the step from the city to the mountain, you have to leave behind everything you knew. No more girls, no more city life, no more friends, no nothing. Even smell and colors change. However, Omar also sees positives from becoming a guerilla fighter and he gets a lot of lessons, for example in humility. Omar says that becoming a part of the guerrilla enabled him to cleanse from the bourgeoisie defects, they fade out. He says that guerilla fighters despite the stereotypes are tender at heart. I think that reading Fire from the Mountain gives great insight into being a guerilla fighter, a more human aspect.

I must admit I was quite impressed by the way the book started. In the first couple of pages you see how much the author is trying to convey this idea of it being hot and that there is no escape. He even states, “I want to convince whoever is reading this book, that León is hot. I’m not making this up, it’s really hot”. But even just with this phrase, what stands out is the tone of the author. It is very casual and local to say the least. By local I mean a type of language that would be spoken only in local towns as opposed to maybe in the city. He even in the first couple of pages mentions that there is the upper, middle, and lower class. What we get in the first couple of pages is therefore what a “true” local town is like in Nicaragua. He even characterizes the town by describing this bar or local space where people go to and play pool and drink beer. What impressed me the most from reading the first few pages is his choice of “bad” words with particular reference to religion. He first of all refers some people as whores, and secondly says that they don’t f**k around on Holy Week, “where else could you go but to Lezama’s?” If his language is not casual, it seems to be mocking something all the time. This casualness however is quickly eliminated when he then starts talking about his experience as a Sandinista fighter (interesting how he is serious when it comes to war and soldier related matters, but then everything else he can talk as casually as he pleases). He begins describing his experience as a Sandinista when he was a young boy. One of the first thing he mentions is that as a young boy he did not like seeing blood. Not only does this show innocence but it also shows the reality of a revolution.

I liked how halfway through the book the author mentioned how the soldiers ate with such a voracious appetite trying to imagine their food as something decadent, them drooling over the scent of food. And then, sadness over the fact that these soldiers were not going to spend Christmas the way they used to with family back home, and how whenever Christmas came, there was also this particular atmosphere, people were happy, there were lights and decorations. But, in the mountains the soldiers did not get any of that, they were even trying to find (if possible) whether and how the rural people in the mountains celebrated Christmas. I liked this part because it addresses what I mentioned in The Underdogs; that revolutions are not just about fighting and trying to win, but that at a personal level, it affects families as they are separated and risk losing each other. There is a lot of parallel between this book and that of the Bolivian Diary where both mention in detail the journey in the mountains and how difficult it was for these soldiers, how much planning and optimism they needed, and the possible dangers.

Finally, the end of the book talks about the legacies of a Sandinista. I liked how he emphasized the word history, in particular, he calls it Sandinista history, one of honor, dignity, and of the people fighting against Yankee imperialism (again). But if anything, by emphasizing so much on history and its relation to people and its legacies, the authors successfully seems to make it as part of Nicaraguan identity, that the people who live nowadays, this is where they (or their parents, grandparents, family relatives) came from, this is what it means to be Nicaraguan, and this is the unifying spirit of the country. Even on the last page he says, “I felt I was the son of history. I understood my own past. I knew where I stood. I had a country. I had a historical identity”. So the legacy of Sandinismo is that it goes on even after the revolution, and how it has shaped people’s identity, history, and national significance. It was in the end, a fight for liberty, truth, and peace for all Nicaraguans!