Well, reflecting on this course as a whole, I have to say that it pretty much met my expectations, and it certainly proved to be an interesting experiment in terms of class format. Going into this class, my main goal was to find out more about Latin-American revolutionary history, which – Euro-centric education obliging – I had never really learned about outside of the context of decolonisation. The material we read and discussed definitely satisfied me in that regard – especially since it covered 20^th century revolutions for the most part – and I found the texts and films were a great way to delve into Latin-American history. As for the unusual and experimental format of the class, it led to some interesting results, although I’m not certain that it ended up being necessarily better or worse than the “traditional” university course structure.

While the topic of Latin-American revolutions could have warranted a course in and of itself, studying it through literary works offered an interesting variety in perspectives. When thinking of revolutionary texts, I would probably have limited myself to works with a political and strategic orientation, such as Guerilla Warfare, The Coming Insurrection, or the Communist Manifesto. However, getting to discover revolution through different literary genres, be it biography (Che, Fire from the Mountain) or poetry (Cartucho, Invisible) allowed for reflections on revolution that concerned themselves with different notions, such as violence or the place of the individual within revolution. It also outlined the singularity of the revolutionary moment, and its existence as a complete disruption in the typical course of everyday life. Beyond literary genres themselves, the variety in the authors of these portrayals also offered some insightful grounds for thought and discussion: a revolutionary uprising does not look the same through the eyes of a Mexican child than it does through those of an American writer or film director, and exploring these different perspectives shed light on the variety of significances revolutions can hold.

As for conclusions regarding revolution itself, I don’t really get the impression we’ve reached any clear way of evaluating or even defining revolution, probably owing to the open-ended nature of the course. Nevertheless, I do think the class agreed on certain broad points, and I believe we can safely characterise revolution as the overturning of dominating power structures and relations – often upheld and perpetuated by the existing state – with the aim of eliminating the oppression they cause. Domination and oppression in this case can take on many different forms, be it capitalism, colonialism or patriarchy, and studying specific instances of revolution showed the specificity of these forms in time and place, through examples such as American imperialism in Latin America or indigenous struggles in colonial and post-colonial nations. While the ways in which to rid ourselves of these forms of dominations can be obscure and debatable, the drive to constantly fight against them is probably the closest thing there is to a true revolutionary sentiment.

When thinking about a conclusion and ways to wrap up the class, I felt that the concept of a conclusion is very similar to our definition of a revolution. Throughout the class, we have discussed how to classify a revolution on whether or not it was successful the list goes on. But what I have come to realize is that our understanding of what revolutions are and how they function remain the same, although now we understand the different type of revolutions and whether or not something can be classified as one. Even our understanding of what could be a revolutionary text has changed, we have examples like Guerrilla Warfare which is a direct example of how revolutions can start and then we have Cartuchos which in itself is not a revolutionary text but depicts the Mexican Revolution like no other text does. Even though our definition hasn’t changed since the first day that we had class, the way that we look at texts and revolution has.

Even though our understanding of revolutions hasn’t changed our view is constantly changing as we learn more about each individual revolution throughout the class. Although we haven’t changed much throughout the class I still feel that we have grown in understanding how revolutions can work and how they can also fail. This concept of succeeding and failing is one which we initially discussed at the start of class was something that we all had a great amount of debate on, yet even now our understanding of success is ever changing. We see that in The Country Under My Skin, Belli goes into detail about how even though her revolution was a success she feels that the matter which it was handled was unsuccessful. Even through her eyes, the concept of success is mixed, success can be attributed to a wide variety of things all based on one’s own perspective.

Overall I feel that throughout this class we have been so many opportunities to express our own ideas and learn about the ideas of others, it is these opportunities which furthered our understanding of what a revolution truly is. Even though we may not have changed, just seeing and understanding different points of views is equally as important. The question of whether a revolution is successful or if it can be classified as one may never be answered, but these aren’t the questions that truly need answers. We didn’t learn to answer questions like these in class, but instead learned to ask more question and find out what other people think of those questions, we have learned more by asking than answering.

When thinking about a conclusion and ways to wrap up the class, I felt that the concept of a conclusion is very similar to our definition of a revolution. Throughout the class, we have discussed how to classify a revolution on whether or not it was successful the list goes on. But what I have come to realize is that our understanding of what revolutions are and how they function remain the same, although now we understand the different type of revolutions and whether or not something can be classified as one. Even our understanding of what could be a revolutionary text has changed, we have examples like Guerrilla Warfare which is a direct example of how revolutions can start and then we have Cartuchos which in itself is not a revolutionary text but depicts the Mexican Revolution like no other text does. Even though our definition hasn’t changed since the first day that we had class, the way that we look at texts and revolution has.

Even though our understanding of revolutions hasn’t changed our view is constantly changing as we learn more about each individual revolution throughout the class. Although we haven’t changed much throughout the class I still feel that we have grown in understanding how revolutions can work and how they can also fail. This concept of succeeding and failing is one which we initially discussed at the start of class was something that we all had a great amount of debate on, yet even now our understanding of success is ever changing. We see that in The Country Under My Skin, Belli goes into detail about how even though her revolution was a success she feels that the matter which it was handled was unsuccessful. Even through her eyes, the concept of success is mixed, success can be attributed to a wide variety of things all based on one’s own perspective.

Overall I feel that throughout this class we have been so many opportunities to express our own ideas and learn about the ideas of others, it is these opportunities which furthered our understanding of what a revolution truly is. Even though we may not have changed, just seeing and understanding different points of views is equally as important. The question of whether a revolution is successful or if it can be classified as one may never be answered, but these aren’t the questions that truly need answers. We didn’t learn to answer questions like these in class, but instead learned to ask more question and find out what other people think of those questions, we have learned more by asking than answering.

This week we had no texts to read, but instead we were tasked with simply writing a blog about the course as a whole. Overall I feel that this course was very interesting and I very much enjoyed the stimulating debate that was generated from our discussions. I feel that the class as a whole was interesting in that most people developed their own unique perspective and was able to come to some vague conclusions (capitalism is inherently exploitative, indigenous struggles are vital to revolutions etc.). I myself used this class as an opportunity to solidify my ideology.

I was thinking of how others in the class may have viewed me during the semester and I found that aspect to be interesting. I am wondering if people found me to be too dogmatic or sectarian, but to be honest, this class has only helped to reinforce my political stances. To me, class struggle is still the one defining element to a “true” revolution because, as Marx outlined, “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. Each and every revolution that we looked at, in some way or form was brought about due to the exploitation and widespread poverty that was caused by capitalism. If there is one conclusion I can draw from this course, it is that capitalism must be overcome in order for us as a society to advance. This is exemplified in all struggles around the world, with Latin America being no exception. In fact it is Latin America, whose people were subject to merciless colonization, dehumanization, and exploitation that should best understand why capitalism must be overcome.

One thing that I did find somewhat frustrating with this class, which more is a reflection of society is a whole that happens to be highlighted in this class, is that we seem to be stuck in this idea that we don’t have any solutions to the ills of capitalism. We collectively have decided that capitalism is not sustainable, yet when faced with the task of creating a solution we seem dumbfounded as to what to do. I guess I become annoyed because to me the solution is clear, communism! People are still stuck in this stage where they see the USSR or Cuba as what communism will look like, however this simply is just not the case. Just like we discussed in class, we must look to past revolutions as learning experiences for which we can build off. Feudalism wasn’t overthrown in 50, 100 or 500 years. It took time, effort and multiple revolutions to overcome it, just like it will take time and effort to overcome capitalism. Now, more than ever we must constantly strive to capitalize on revolutionary moments; union strikes, protests, riots etc. to help advance class consciousness to the point where the proletariat realizes its true potential and breaks free from the class bondages emplaced it. If I could leave a final thought from this class, it would be that revolutions are not a brief war between oppressor and oppressed, but rather a permanent upheaval that must constantly be renewed to ensure the continuity of the revolution for generations to come.

Well, I want to start my end of term reflection by thanking everyone for being such great classmates. I feel like we had some pretty productive discussions and got into some interesting revolutionary terrain during the class. The debates were lively and the respect for each other’s opinion was paramount. So, it was a real pleasure to have spent the time with you all and I am inspired by your passion.

Regarding the format of the class, I really came to appreciate the unique environment it created. I think it was in our conversations about the lack of spaces to connect as students when I started to realize the value of our semi-unstructured space. I feel like the learning often flowed more organically as a result. That freedom often yielded substantial outcomes and I thank you for that Jon.

Within the course I  enjoyed many of the texts. It was interesting to get such a broad description of revolutionary accounts and compare them side-by-side. I am not sure how much closer I am to answering what is a revolution? but it really doesn’t matter. The texts established diversity in strategies to create change and brought bigger questions to the foreground. Like: Is the thrill of revolution addictive? or How can we deconstruct this world and reconstruct a new one at the same time? Or where do we direct the violence? or how can we structure a revolution so that it addresses multiple systems of oppression effectively? These critiques are where real strength in the movement comes from and I think the authors we read did an excellent job of provoking this type of thinking. I especially appreciated writings like Cartucho and Invisable that illustrated the poetry of resistance. I just read this really cool article about decolonial art and they describe the role of creativity in the creation of social change – “It seeks to limn the margins of land, culture and consciousness for potential exits, for creative spaces of departure and renewal.” I think that their idea is really important because it suggests that within the act of creative resistance new worlds are formed. I feel like this was something that all of the authors we read accomplished through their literature.

So, the revolution is coming. It happened then. It is happening right now, small but growing. It is morphing and adapting to the challenges we face. It may not look like the guerrilla struggles of the past but the goals are the same. People are waking, are calling out injustice and finding their place in the dismantling of violent systems. They are working connect beyond oppression and build a reality founded in justice.

I am glad to be done with this term. I am not sure how I feel about this course, to be honest. It was by no means one of the best courses I’ve ever taken, nor one of the worst. What I can say about it definitively is: it’s certainly been different than my other classes. Specifically in terms of grading.

This contractual grading system had a strange affect on me, which is that I began to care less and less about my performance for this class. I think this was, to some degree, the point? But it felt quite negative for me actually, since I felt less and less invested in the course content as the weeks went on. I don’t think this is necessarily because I am guaranteed a certain mark, I’ve certainly rejected certain coursework or done additional work in other classes, depending on how the the subject in question piqued my interest. Rather, I think that this contractual system resulted in an atmosphere that eventually became too disorganized and discouraging and this is what ultimately resulted in my disinterest. I can see this being an unpopular opinion and I can also see how disorganization would have the opposite affect on some people. It isn’t good or bad.

All that said, I found the majority of the texts for this course fascinating. Highlights included: Cartucho, Fire from the Mountain and Invisible. I particularly liked last class when we spoke with the author of Invisible (though I’ve forgotten his name, sorry.) I found him a little shy at first, but then endearing and sincere. I especially liked the time lapse video of him drawing, very cool. Also it was nice that he read our blogs? That seemed like some additional work on his part.

I don’t know what I learned from this course apart from knowledge about the specific texts and histories they alluded/pertained to. Hopefully it will come to me later. I was hoping it would shed some light on something I could put energy towards from within the institution that wouldn’t burn me out and bum me out or strengthen my resolve to drop out, but it did neither. I am a pretty indecisive person after all and those are decisions I should make by myself, most likely. Thanks everyone for your time and consideration and fascinating input, even if we didn’t always, or almost never, saw eye to eye it was a neat experience.

I think this class gave me more of a personal and human perspective to revolutions. Usually we talk about revolutions on a grand scale and as a big entity and we forget that it affects people on the micro level. At the end of it all revolutions are about people. People put them forward, try to impede them, or are affected by them in ways they couldn’t have even imagined. Reading literature really helped in the personal aspect of revolutions, especially The Underdogs, Cartucho, Fire from the Mountain, and The Country Under My Skin. These texts really helped me understand more about enduring and being part of a revolution, even if you are a part of the revolution as some sort of leader or a citizen in a region were a great change is attempting to happen. These texts were in a way autobiographies and this is why they helped me see how revolutions affect people on a personal level. Similarly I also enjoyed Che’s Guerilla Warfare and The Bolivian Diary as they gave me a perspective on fighting for ones cause in the jungle and although Che tried to keep his diary professional we could learn a lot from it. We saw that one has to leave everything behind in the city, everything that is familiar to you, in order to adapt to a completely new environment that is also isolated. This is why Che’s diary was also very personal even though it attempted to be very soldier like and not give away any emotion. This by itself says a lot about fighting in the jungle or revolutionary causes in general when one is the minority. In the course I felt that the literature as well as Che’s more theoretical/diary work complemented each other quite well to give a more balanced insight into revolutionary change.

After taking this class I think that violent revolutions are necessary, or maybe better said, I think that it is impossible to have a non-violent revolution. Although I would like to think that it is possible to enact change without the use of violence, after having taken this class it has become harder for me to see it happening.

The readings got quite hectic at times, but obviously this is due to having other classes. However I do think that this class had quite a bit of reading compared to my other classes. I still think that when we divided into smaller groups and then discussed as a whole this brought better discussion. When we simply went around the class it felt that a lot was repeated rather than forming an overall discussion between everybody. In the go around technique one would just say something and that would be that.

This was my first class that was mostly student led and I think it was a success. I think that everybody put effort in providing interesting questions for our discussions and most of all were willing to engage in the texts. I think this class should be a 300 level course rather than a 200.

What I greatly enjoyed about this course was how it taught us to think of revolutions in a more analytical way. Simply saying that a revolution is just an uprise from the civilian population against the government does not encompass the depth and uniqueness of revolutions. The one benefit of studying revolutions through the movies and texts we watched and read, was it broke down revolutions into more abstract and personal ways of thinking. This is something that cannot be accomplished by taking a history course or reading books that teach about them from a more pragmatic and standard approach. However, I would also argue that having this traditional way of learning about revolutions through history books would have benefitted my learning of revolutions in this course. I felt to some extent limited. I think learning about the historical context and the actual events and people specific to each revolution would have made this course more enjoyable. Nevertheless, as I mentioned earlier, studying revolutions through these more personal materials, has been very useful and offers us what I would argue, the true essence of a revolution; and that is that revolutions start from within, they come from a need, something personal. That is something that textbooks and history, I would argue, cannot fully create. We need to look and learn about revolutions first through “primary sources” meaning the people who were directly involved in the revolutions, whether on the revolutionary side, or counter-revolutionary side. This is after all, a fight for survival, and therefore the value and input of both sides is very significant and gives us a true sense of what the revolution was. Then, we can rely on “secondary sources” such as history textbooks that provide us with a more objective lens at revolutions. Having both “primary” and “secondary” sources, we can then find some balance and complete understanding of the uniqueness in each individual revolution.

Revolutions are not just to topple down an oppressive government. We have seen that the term can be applied to other instances. We talked about capitalism, feminism, student marginalization, personal struggles. These are other forces that we need to address with the collective support of our communities, but also with governments, business, NGOs, social movements, and each other. However way we look at revolutions, we use it as a banner, as a voice, as a collective but also individual shield, weapon, and power, to bring positive change. And we must never lose faith in our cause or in the revolution itself, for by that very nature, revolutions cease to exist. The revolution depends on each individual spirit and trust. And lastly, must revolutions be violent? We have learned that past revolutions whether successful or not, have nevertheless ended in the lives of innocent people on both sides. Revolutions as much as they bring together people, they also separate people by causing more antagonism towards each other. This however, might be revolutions’ very nature and something that we cannot change. But as a society that has grown and learned from our past mistakes, I hope that we can make revolutions more peaceful. If revolutions are personal and meant to bring change, there is nothing humane about killing other people. Obviously, I am thinking in a more humanistic and idealistic way. However, if we could theoretically achieve this, I think it would greatly challenge our current understanding of revolutions as being violent and something catastrophic. Nevertheless, if we could find an alternative, we could make revolutions something more meaningful, something not to be afraid of, but rather something that we know can work and bring positive change. We already live in a violent society with people dying of hunger, poverty, wars, governmental conflict, terrorism, natural disasters. Continuing our path of revolutions with more killing only undermines us and our goal for global progress. Therefore, we need to find alternative and better ways.

Overall, an interesting and enjoyable course. And this blog is probably the most important thing that I will take out of this course (along with everything else we learned in this course)

I enjoyed this weeks reading. Mostly because I could relate to many things The Coming Insurrection expressed. The first part of the book was a critique of our current system. I liked the fact that the book touched on many issues that we currently face. For example there was a lot of critique about our system of work. The book says, “we admit the necessity of getting money, regardless of the means, because it is impossible right now to do without it, but we don’t admit the necessity of working”. I feel that a lot of people have become apathetic to working in capitalism. Inequality is all around and to be working for some fast-food restaurant or as a bellboy I can imagine one becomes frustrated and in need of change.

Also the book says that we are a product of our economy. Or more specifically, “for generations we’ve been disciplined, pacified, we’ve been made into naturally productive subjects, just content to consume”. This is a clear critique of what capitalism has done to us. A lot of the population has become fixated on material possession and feels content to consume in order to create one’s identity.

I also could relate to a specific quote from the text. The book says “The proliferation of displacement and communications everywhere tears us constantly from the here and now, with the temptation of being somewhere else all the time”. We are always on our phone and using social media. Instead of being in the moment, the now, we are always some place else. The Internet and communication has allowed for this annihilation of time and space and we are never truly living in the moment but we are some place else. I find this to be a huge negative side of the progress of communication and see it as a reason for our current passivity to be active and enact change to our current system. Similar to this the book touches on another theme about the self. The book expresses that we have become alienated from our society. Specifically, “to survive the surrounding uniformity, the only option to is to reconstitute your own inner world constantly”.

I like the notion of insurrection in this book. I liked the idea to take up arms and maintain an armed presence rather than becoming a part of an armed struggle. I like this idea because it is more about instigating fear into the state. I think that this can lead the way to a revolution. Once people see that those who hold the status quo fear the masses we will be more confident to take up matters into our own hands. The book says, “ten thousand people can shake the worlds greatest economic power”. This fully means that people have the power if they come together and that gives us courage. We have seen this happen in history. However, the book does state that “there is no such thing as a peaceful insurrection”, and many times in the text violence seems to be implied as a way to meet the ends. It was also interesting to see their ideal vision of the future. Especially that their ideal society would be in communes. This is an interesting idea and I’m not completely sure how it would work out.