As I finished reading (to the end of the epilogue), my initial last thoughts are summed up in “The Five P’s” -a saying drilled into my head by my mother. The Five P’s are simply, “Proper Preparation Prevents Poor Performance.” This is the essence of how I feel about this book. Che writes a detailed “outline” of what is necessary for guerilla warfare to be successful, which ultimately leads to the success of a revolution… supposedly. Now, my knowledge of Che and the Cuban Revolution are incredibly limited, so please forgive any blunders on my part, but from reading this it seems that this revolution was a success, at the very least it was so in the eyes of Che.

He covers a lot of ground for a short book, from the start of a guerilla army to the way in which a successful overthrow should be maintained and how society should change, to even thoughts on how to deal with reactions from capitalism, especially from the States. The main essence I draw from the epilogue is that of Cuban unity, that “an army of six million Cubans will grasp weapons as a single man in order to defend its territory and its Revolution.” The idea that from peasant to worker to those in command will be trained and able to function as an entire unit to defend an ideal, is something that just stirs up emotion, more so if you ignore the use of “man” as opposed to an all-inclusive pronoun.

It is important to note that this book has a direct mention to the role of women in the revolution. There are two things I want to mention here. First is a contradiction made by Che. On page 92, he notes that “despite current belief, she does not create conflicts of a sexual type in the troops.” In the appendices, he writes “it must be emphasized that they [women] can play a destructive part [in the revolution]. The weakness for women that young men have… is well known.” He also mentions in the Role of Women section that women can marry and life as man and wife while in the appendices he says that “it is necessary also to prohibit relations with women” because of the above as well as fear of spies.

Furthermore, while Che originally writes that women can fight alongside the men, and have other important assignments such as communications, while in the epilogue he only talks of “auxiliary” tasks which are in essence the stereo-typical feminine roles such as cooking, cleaning, comforting.

Che’s Guerrilla Warfare was a lot different than my readings for other classes this week.  His book is a step-by-step romantic guide to armed resistance and I cant help but feel he would be a little disappointed by the context in which I read his book, sipping my coffee at jj bean. It outlines how to go about overthrowing a non-communist government, with writings on everything from winning local support to which exact guns work best in the mountains to dealing with the sent of fellow comrades.

One aspect of his outline that I appreciated was that he does not call for complete conformity. For example, as he discusses military strategy he says, “ Another fundamental characteristic of the guerrilla soldier is his flexibility, his ability to adapt himself to all circumstances, and to convert to his service all of the accidents of the action. Against the rigidity of classical methods of fighting, the guerrilla fighter invents his own tactics at every minute of the fight and constantly surprises the enemy.” It seems like this space for creativity in resistance is key to success as it breaks from the hegemonic chain of command and encourages a diversity of ideas. That is not to say that Che is campaigning for a non-hierarchical military (he’s not) but, any move in that direction seems like it will create a more adaptable and ultimately successful resistance. He also encourages respect for ideas and knowledge specific to the land on which the fighters are engaged. “Conduct toward the civil population ought to be regulated by a large respect for all the rules and traditions of the people of the zone, in order to demonstrate effectively, with deeds, the moral superiority of the guerrilla fighter over the oppressing soldier.’ Again this policy listens rather than overpowers and in theory I believe would encourage exchange and growth within the resistance.

Another interesting move that Che makes in the book is his attempt to build the “Guerrilla Fighter.” Through the chapters he builds a ideal fighter that is kind, compassionate, morally flawless and willing to die without regret. To quote a particularly romantic passage, “To the stoicism imposed by the difficult conditions of warfare should be added an austerity born of rigid self-control that will prevent a single excess, a single slip, whatever the circumstances. The guerrilla soldier should be an ascetic.” Clearly, Che is suggesting a type of person that would be difficult to find in real life. However, I don’t think that is necessarily a bad thing and seems to represent an goal to work towards for resistance fighters. It guides them towards a kind of moral honor rather power gained though physical domination. I think this is a real positive in his vision and separates his book from more typical military strategy. Overall, I thought the book was an interesting read and an informative window into Che’s optimism for the revolutionary movements of the world immediately after the Cuban revolution.

and if anyone still needs it, I found a link for the movie next week w/subtitles –

Che – Part 1

http://gorillavid.in/8m7yc30mp0md

Teaching class was okay. I liked it but I was unsure whether it was that enjoyable for the other people involved. Saw a few cellphones out (If you think I’m talking about you I almost definitely am) but who am I to judge. For Cartucho we found that the text was so dynamic we didn’t really feel the need to look elsewhere for class material. So it felt more like a book club than a class. But I liked  that.

We divided our questions into three main categories: trauma, violence and the role of women.

For trauma I was mostly interested in whether or not the protagonist was traumatized. I still don’t think I’ve decided. I thought that was an interesting discussion.

For violence we looked at a few segments specifically and tried to deduce what purpose the violence was serving in the narrative, if any.

The role of women brought up a lot of questions around motherhood, inter generational knowledge and implicit work/strength. I think that any of the sections we chose as discussion topics for each subject were likely interchangeable as there was so much going on in each vignette. I enjoyed hearing about other people’s experiences with the book, especially around the scene where the soldiers become obsessed with the baby.

I also like the semi-circle formation (maybe that’s just because I was in front) and going around in a circle because I think it encouraged everyone to speak up without being forceful about it.

This week’s assigned reading was Cartucho by Nellie Campobello. I found the novel quite interesting in its unconventional style of multiple “short stories” imbedded in one book. The perspective of the Mexican Revolution taken from the view of Campobello’s writing seems to give an air of authenticity that Viva Zapata! and Underdogs just did not have. The way Campobello writes is also interesting as she clearly is influenced by Mexican culture. Her writing is extremely poetic and musters intense feelings of melancholy and sadness (or at least I found). For instance when describing the death of a soldier, Campobello describes “his body turning cold, the tissue of his porous flesh clutching the bullets that killed him.” This writing style shows how metaphorical and tragically poetic Campobello is trying to portray the Mexican Revolution.

I also found the book interesting because it is the first time that we can gaze through the eyes of a woman and see the Mexican Revolution. Additionally, the cultural significance of this book is extremely important as much of what is written likely came from stories that actually were told and happened during the revolution. Of course some of these stories may be embellished but I think its quite interesting that Cartucho can be seen almost as a historical text that encapsulates the tales that actually circulated during the revolution. However is should also be noted that this fanaticism of storytelling and embellishments may have been a cause for the revolutions downfall. Campobello herself even notes how important these tales were during the revolution. She proclaims that “[Mexico is] a country where legends are invented and where people lull their pain listening to them …”. I think her tone here is really important because we are given the sense that she herself is almost angry at the failures of the revolution. She also notes how the mysticism surrounding individuals within the revolution may have been a cause for the lack of triumph but the “true” revolutionary forces.

What I also found interesting was both the novels we have read were from the perspectives of those most closely aligned with Pancho Villa (his soldiers thus being known as “Villistas” as noted in the books). What I don’t quite clearly understand is the Mexican peoples obsession over Villa. From some basic reading on Villa, it seems to me that he was an extremely vain and opportunist man who built himself up to be some amazing revolutionary hero. Multiple sources point to the idea that Villa himself wanted essentially embed himself in the memory of the Mexican Revolution as a shining example of a wonderful man, but it seems that could not be farther from the truth. Along these lines I think it is important to note that revolutions should have there heroes, but these heroes should not become the sole reason for fighting, nor should individuals be considered heroes simply through word of mouth. We must also learn that all hero’s have their flaws and should be followed not through their legendary status, but rather should be appreciated for their political ideology and their willingness to devote their life to the struggle of the peasants and proletariat.

So I thought our class on Thursday went quite well.  (I apologize if I was a bit out of it. I was at the start of a really bad flu) However, I thought the comparison of the three perspectives on the revolution was especially productive and I really appreciated the insights people shared about what role they saw each playing in the legacy of the revolution. One more week to go!  Here was our plan for the class.

Recognize the territory and Musqueam history of resistance.

organize class in semi circle

Revolution as a claim on history

How perspective can shape the story –

Who is Mariano Azuela –

Short bio

in what ways could azuelas past frame his understanding of the revolution?

Break into groups and tell the story from the perspective as –

Demitero– (you guys said)Frantic, No structure, Impulse, Muscle of revolution, Journal, Revenge, Personal gain, Relies on others to tell his story, Revolution as a way of life

Camilla-Female stereotype, Love at the center of the story, How does she feel about Cervantes? The revolution as dangerous, Daily life as important

Villa- Clear picture of what is going on, How he creates mythical image, Does no know what is going on on the ground, Villa as a human. why? Less mythic

3 takes on a revolution-

Mexican government – 2010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5x60UdXFXl0

American diplomats wife – sympathetic – but of the upper class

octavio paz –

Does one story win? Why? What is the legacy of the loosing sides claim on history?

How did Azuela/Cervantes help the cause? How did it tke away from it?

How does language frame history?

What tools to further their perspective?

In what ways do the authors differ? In what ways are they the same?

The Pebble – revolution as an addiction – p. 132

Mate quote-

What are the different ways people come to join the revolution?

What does the violence achieve for the men either intentionally or unintentionally?

Are some reasons more or less justifiable?

It was a little hard to get into the vignette style of Cartucho however by the end I really came to enjoy what Nellie Campobello has created. It reads a bit like a Tarantino movie with violence central to every page but it paints a poetic picture of the revolution. One thing that I appreciated was that it feels a lot more like oral storytelling than literature. She always emphasizes things like the men’s personal character, weather or not they behaved bravely when they died, their clothing…it feels like stories your grandpa would tell you about his friends in the war. The book comes across as more honest because of this and is able to avoid picking a single streamlined narrative for a super complicated situation. I think this helps the reader gain insight into the revolution by allowing them to paint the bigger picture.

Another unique characteristic of Campobello’s work is how she often connects herself to the characters and locates them for the reader within her community. I feel like this is important because it demonstrates that the characters are/were people before they were revolutionaries. One example was in the vignette “Babis Sentence” where she describes Babi saying, “Babi was my friend. He used to give me tons of candy. He told me he loved be because I knew how to fight with boys who threw stones.” She then tells of how he went to fight but she knew he would die and in the end she was right. This story helps the reader build a much deeper connection to Babi than if he had just been described as a candy store worker conscripted and killed.

Campobello is also very poetic and her voice contributes to the mythologizing of the soldiers and the revolution. She often recalls how the soldiers tilted their head to the sky in brave acceptance of death and mentions tiny details like how they smoked or stole candy for her. It works really well to humanize them and connect the reader to the story. In death as well she uses lines like, “his body turning cold, the tissue of his porous flesh clutching the bullets that killed him” or her memory of picking up the soldiers frozen blood to make it feel almost dreamlike rather than meaningless. This poeticism works not just in the individual stories but at the end of the book as well it felt like I had just listen to rich folk ballad rather than read fifty stories of murder. It made me think a lot about the importance this kind of work plays in creating a positive legacy for the revolution.

Out of all three of the works we have seen and read on the Mexican Revolution, Cartucho is definitely the one that struck me the most. In a sense, Nellie Campobello’s novel / collection of short stories could be described as the diametric opposite of Kazan and Steinbeck’s Viva Zapata!. Campobello never makes any attempt of characterising or judging the revolution any further than the reactions of herself as a child, and her fragmented narrative doesn’t explicitly make any overarching point. Her writing style and attention to detail also bring across more authenticity than Marlon Brando`s improbably heroic and righteous version of Emiliano Zapata ever could.

This authenticity seems to come from the fact that Campobello is attempting to replicate the style of the various true stories she heard as a child. Cartucho’s dedication, which reads “To Mama, who gave me the gift of true stories” (p.4) seems to confirm this, and Rafaela Luna’s stories feature prominently in the novel, alongside her daughter’s own memories. This search for truth in storytelling can be seen in the amount of detail Campobello gives each of her vignettes, especially when it comes to violence and gore. In fact these are what appear to have struck her the most as a child witnessing the Revolution unfold in front of her house. Her descriptions in particular bring out her fascination for the violent deaths she witnessed by frequently veering into the lyrical, such as with Pablo Mares: “All the blood running in bubbling red threads over the rock begged forgiveness for not having sired strong children” (p.76).

However, it is just as easy to contest the fact that her account – even of her own perspective – can aspire to depicting some kind of truth. While her writing gives a very tangible and vivid edge to the events and impressions she describes, she is nonetheless recounting them at least ten years after she saw and felt them. As such, it is impossible to consider that the voice the author gives herself as a child isn’t at least somewhat fabricated, and according to the translator’s notes Campobello herself confirmed this. So, despite it being a genuine autobiographical work, unlike Azuela’s The Underdogs, it is nonetheless burdened by a certain, and probably inevitable distance from its subject matter.

While Campobello does use style and her potentially fallible memory to bring these snapshots of the Revolution to life, I don’t think these detract from the value of Cartucho as a piece of revolutionary literature. On the contrary, by writing in a lyrical style and using her own impressions, the author brings us emotionally closer to the revolution and its various actors than any factual account ever could. All the while, her commitment to describing real events and people separates it from The Underdogs, whose fictional characters can be more easily accused of being unrealistic stereotypes. Perhaps most importantly, these tales are essentially a continuation of the “true stories” Campobello – and probably many others – grew up with during the Mexican Revolution, and in that sense Cartucho is a truly authentic account.

After reading Cartucho, I would say it hadn’t enhance my knowledge to understanding the Mexican Revolution. In certain points, I can sense the violence death of the soldiers through Campobello’s vision. It lacks the essence to portray ‘revolution lives’, why and how the Villistas struggle to survive.  Bur how could I blame the innocent memory of a privileged child? What would children know about the cruelty of war game?

I would like to mention a soft description in part I, Nellie reveals that most Mexican soldiers can sing with a fine voice. Indeed, it is a traditional gift among Mexican men. This musical nature is the living proof nowadays. The men and boys are often perform singing, playing guitar, piano, and double bass either indoor or outdoor. No wonder in a statistic mark the Mexicans are the most happy soul in the world!!

After reading Cartucho, I would say it hadn’t enhance my knowledge to understanding the Mexican Revolution. In certain points, I can sense the violence death of the soldiers through Campobello’s vision. It lacks the essence to portray ‘revolution lives’, why and how the Villistas struggle to survive.  Bur how could I blame the innocent memory of a privileged child? What would children know about the cruelty of war game?

I would like to mention a soft description in part I, Nellie reveals that most Mexican soldiers can sing with a fine voice. Indeed, it is a traditional gift among Mexican men. This musical nature is the living proof nowadays. The men and boys are often perform singing, playing guitar, piano, and double bass either indoor or outdoor. No wonder in a statistic mark the Mexicans are the most happy soul in the world!!