I felt that the notion of revolutions are cyclical and doomed to recreate and/or sustain the conditions they were conceived in really came through in this novel, especially in the latter half. This sentiment is encapsulated by a phrase near the end of the book which reads, “”If you’ve got a rifle in your hand and your cartridge belts are full its because you’re going to fight. For whom? Against whom? For whom? No one even cares about that.” (Pg 78)  In this instance, revolution, and specifically its violent qualities, are seen as mindless and mechanical. The fighting loses its meaning. We see this again when Demetrio’s wife asks him why he is still fighting and he replies, “see how the pebble can’t stop…” (Pg 86) Positing what began as revolutionary violence as not only inevitable but natural as well.

When Demetrio and his crew begin looting more regularly, we see a much darker side of them than we did before. Or perhaps we only see it pronounced in comparison to the first half of the book. Eventually while looting they “clean out” a peasant man. They take all his corn and he cannot feed his family. When he brings this to their attention they make a show of accommodating him but then make him “beg for mercy.” (Pg 68) This scene puts into focus, who, if anyone, Demetrio & his gang appear to be fighting for. At this point, it seems that they are only fighting for themselves. What is telling about this scene is that they are not only unwilling to meet this man’s needs but they actually make a spectacle of his suffering.

Luis Cervante does a curious thing in the same scene. When the looting is over he says, “Look what a mess the boys have made. Wouldn’t it be best to keep them from doing this?” (Pg 48) He is condemns looting but as readers we know he himself has pocketed one of the most valuable things found, diamonds. (The person he’s talking to also knows this but declines to comment on his obvious insincerity.) Cervante maintains an air of superiority throughout the story which reaches its peak when we learn he has taken his spoils and enrolled in medical school in America. It seems to me that in this scene especially he is demonstrating a double standard. He appears to feel moral/intellectual superiority even though he engages in similar and/or identical activities as his peers. What I found strange is that when I looked into the author’s background it was very similar to Cervante’s in that the author also had a background in academia and in medicine. This portrayal then confused me because I couldn’t tell whether the author’s intent was to demonstrate the precarity of Cervante’s superiority or the legitimacy of it.

Thank you all for working with George and I on Thursday and engaging with our discussion questions. It would have been a lot more difficult to do that class if no one was into talking. Anyway, our meta outline for the class was :

• George would talk about Zapata and Plan de Ayala

• I would talk about what differentiated Zapata’s movement (land)

Two videos –

Zapatistas-

https://vimeo.com/45615376

Unistoten-

• In what ways is Zapata’s revolution different from a traditional Marxist revolution?
• Is there room for indigenaity in a Marxist revolution?
• What advantages/disadvantages do movement have that are centered around land.?

• George would connect that movement based in land to the EZLN

As far as the parts that we did get too, I thought it went very well. I really felt the discussion about the paintings that George showed was interesting and I appreciated the discussion around room for indigenaity in Marxist movements. For the next time I will have a better idea of how long the discussion will take and plug my computer in so that it doesn’t die in the middle of the presentation.

Now, for the part that I didn’t get to-

– I planed to finish up by talking about the way the Neo-Zapatista movement has been represented/romanticized and finally think about how we can engage in a positive way with contemporary movements that are in the global south.

Quote from: Anarchist Pedagogies: Collective Actions, Theories, and Critical Reflections

In what ways does Romanticization/simplification undermine a movement?

What are the advantages/disadvantages to have an idolized leader/martyr?

How can you engage in a meaningful way with a movement that is in the global south and resist the move to romanicize/simplify?

Quote from a paper by Juanita Sundberg (ubc geography) on North South solidarity –

As posed by United Statesians or Canadians, the question “how can we help” suggests that solidarity is about helping to defend the rights and freedoms of differently situated others. The answer developed by H.I.J.@.S. members suggests that such rights and freedoms are not natural to places like the US or Canada, but are derived from political struggle and therefore can be taken away. In persuading Canadians or United Statesians to become active in struggles for well-being and dignity in their own communities, H.I.J.@.S.-Vancouver are not suggesting that they turn inward and focus on struggles at home rather than abroad. Instead, the idea is that if people in the North try to work from their own experience then they will be in a better position to listen to and collaborate with others involved in equivalent struggles in different locations.

…..Mutuality in solidarity encourages individuals and collectives to speak for themselves, while walking with others to contest neoliberal models that privilege the concerns of multinational corporations over those of civilian populations. We offer these reflections in the hope of inspiring ongoing efforts to re-think solidarity and re-configure resistance through collaboration across borders.

Thanks again to you all and hopefully it goes well this week too!

The Underdogs, a novel by Mariano Azuela, tells a fictionalized story of a small rebel leader, Demetrio Macias. Overall, I found this book to be rather repetitive, with events rolling into each other. Although, there are several parallels to Viva Zapata! Jose brought up the machismo ideology in his Zapata blog post, and it is very evident in this book as well. Every single time someone brings up an act that they did, be it stealing, bedding a woman (which they of course treat like property), or killing a Federale, it almost always leads to several other men with the need to share their stories, embellishing freely. The men under Macias take what they want – women, jewels, trinkets, etc. as their “advances” for fighting in the revolution. This reminded me of Zapata’s brother who took land because he “earned it” becoming a general. However, unlike Zapata, Macias is very removed from the political purpose of the revolution, as it is shown several times throughout the book that he is not interested in such matters. In reality, he is doing little more than fighting and pillaging for the sake of it, essentially a bandit. He isn’t really fighting for any sort of greater purpose, with no desire of change.

Another parallel that I noticed was when Macias denied his men from plundering a house. He has a flashback to when his own house was sacked and burned, perhaps realizing how similar his own actions are. This reminded me of the role reversal that Zapata experiences when he deals with countrymen who’s land was taken from them. However, while Macias does not let his men take from the house, he still has it burnt down, which confuses me. Unlike Zapata, who goes to confront his brother, Macias does the exact same thing as was done to him.

Yet another moment that was similar to the movie is when Macias returns to his wife, and she begs him not to keep fighting, as she knows something will happen to him if he leaves again. But just like Zapata did in the same situation, he continues on his path dies. Thought it seems that Macias never grasps the ideas of the revolution. Maybe he never believes that anything will come of the revolution, other than another person will come into power, another face on a bill. So instead he takes it upon himself to get what he wants, by force. They build themselves up like they are in the right, that what they are doing is somehow good, but in reality they are no better than the Federales that they fought against. Ironically, by the end a lot of Macias’ followers are ex-Federales.

The plan for today was to talk about the Plan de Ayala, Indigenous communities, and the EZLN Zapatistas. Firstly, in regards to the Plan de Ayala, I wanted the class to have read it and been able to outline some of the key things Emiliano Zapata mentions such as denouncing Francisco Madero, asking him to step down, explaining why the Mexican system is not working, and land reform.  Then I wanted to leave with some questions such as whether or not Zapata’s dream of land reform was successfully achieved, why or why not, or to what extent? Also, I wanted to see how we can relate the Revolution to this notion of indigenismo. What indigenismo is and what role it played in the Revolution. Overall, I wanted the class to get a good understanding of the Plan de Ayala so that I could address more important and current themes such as the EZLN, forms of representation such as murals, and finally the symbolic or personal meaning land has to the indigenous culture, and also identity.

The murals that I showed in class are meant to show that beyond words written in books or spoken orally, the Revolution was imagined and brought to life in different forms such as art and music, all having a lot of symbolic and personal meaning to many Mexicans. Even the fact that some of the murals are currently in the Presidential palace in Mexico is indicative of its impact on forming a part of Mexican history and identity

I was happy that everyone in class already knew who the EZLN were. We know that they are a movement, depending on whose perspective, some say a guerrilla movement, others say indigenous movement. Regardless, they became public when they took over several villages in the southern state of Chiapas, Mexico. More significantly, on New Year’s Day, after the signing of this free trade agreement called NAFTA. They saw NAFTA as a threat to Mexican sovereignty, where Mexicans would suffer under yet another wave of capitalism, ultimately leading to greater inequality. Their 6^th Declaration of the Selva Lacandona mentions the problems of capitalism and the exploitative process it carries along with it. They also mention how they want to have more representation or voice in the government, and more access to basic services such as health, and education. Land was once again brought up and the EZLN in fact took its name from Emiliano Zapata. Aja mentioned this in class, and I was also going to ask, but what reason could we think of, that would make them use Zapata’s name as part of this movement? Was it simply continuing on this myth or iconic figure of Zapata, was it about land, or was it something more deep? I also found very interesting the symbolic meaning behind the masks they wore to cover their faces. Some would consider it defiance, others as form of identity protection, and at a deeper level, signifying their “facelessness” in the eyes of the Mexican government. The EZLN also make murals of them and which I think is fascinating and something that could be discussed more as there are probably lots of deeper meanings in them.

Lastly, we’ve been talking about land and land reform and how the Mexican people want it given back. But I would like to address the more personal or symbolic meaning behind land. We did not have time in class to discuss this. The Mexican people don’t just want the land given back to them, just because it’s their home. There is much more. For example, these people for many years have built a relationship with the land, working on it, caring for it, receiving from it. It builds this certain bond. Mexicans also come to think of themselves tied with the land, something that is part of their identity. This is not just the case with Zapata, Pancho Villa, or other campesinos, the fact is, Mexico, throughout its history, has actually lost a lot of its land to others. First Spain during colonialism, then the US where they lost Texas, Arizona, Southern California, and New Mexico. And now with globalism, they see their land being sold to business men around the world. So land is strongly associated with Mexican identity and history. And up to this day they keep on fighting for it.

Has the Revolution ended? What are its legacies? The answers to these questions depend on what side of the story you take. The spirit of Zapatismo, I argue, still exists, and that is a legacy. And the Revolution, if based on land reform, is yes still on, and has never ended.

This week’s assigned work was centered on the movie Viva Zapata! John Steinbeck, a prominent leftist figure in Hollywood during the 1950’s, wrote the movie. I have to admit, the Mexican revolution was one that never really drew the same curiosity out of me as other revolutions.

The movie does a great job of captivating its audience and highlighting the true focus and rationale behind the Mexican revolution, notably the struggle for land in Mexico. The movie was also refreshing in how the characters in the movie were based off real individuals. Often times when cinema produces films or shows regarding revolution or revolutionary individuals it seems that historical persons are exchanged with fictional characters that vaguely resemble their actual counterparts. This has always been odd to me. It is as if the mere mention of revolutionary individuals is villainous or reprehensible in the public’s eyes. Regardless, Viva Zapata! contains important individuals surrounding the revolution such as President Porfirio Diaz, President Victoriano Huerta, President Francisco Madero as well as revolutionaries such as Emiliano Zapata (played by Marlon Brando) and Pancho Villa.

The portrayal of Zapata as a selfless and caring individual is important, as it helps to show a true quality of a revolutionary. A revolutionary must be willing to die for his or her cause, but what Viva Zapata! does so brilliantly is to show the humility and morality of a revolutionary. Zapata is constantly shown as being caring of the peasants he is fighting for. Continually he is portrayed as a concerned individual who is willing to put the desires and needs of the people above his own. Steinbeck also uses Zapata to show the power of corruption and the importance of popular support in a revolutionary movement. Near the end of the film, prior to Zapata’s death, he delivers an interesting quote proclaiming that a “revolution does not need a strong man to lead, but strong people can survive without a leader”. I think this is very important because, while I strongly believe in a revolutionary vanguard, it notes that the backbone of a revolution stems from the people themselves. Of course initially the vanguard revolutionaries will be the ones who initiate armed struggle with the state, it is the people (the peasantry and proletariat) who are the ones with the ability to see a revolution through till the end. Revolutionary motivation comes not from an individual or group, but rather as a violent, explosive and evolutionary outburst of proletarian reaction to the crisis of capitalism. In this way, Viva Zapata! exemplifies the notion that revolution stems from popular discontent, and can only be achieved through popular action.

Before watching the movie about Emiliano Zapata I knew pretty much nothing about him and his movement and the Mexican revolution. It was never a topic that I studied at school or university. Obviously a fictional movie might not be the best way to be introduced to Zapata but there are definitely some things I can take from it. Mostly they come in the form of quotes and scenes about leadership. I thought the most interesting scene was when Zapata is general and a group of men come to him with a land dispute. Zapata says something around the lines of “time will take care of it”, and someone angrily protests saying they don’t have any patience. Zapata then asks the protestor for his name and he circles it on a list, identical to the first scene of the movie where Zapata is the protestor. I thought this scene was critical because it shows perfectly how difficult it is for one person to command over land with people. Zapata himself is shown how hard it is to take things into one’s own hands and please his own people when one is in such a high political position, and this is why he tells the group to be patient. The scene shows how frustrating it can be to hear things like this from politicians and Zapata experiences it firsthand. He was once the revolutionary who went against the status quo and probably called out politicians for being incompetent, but then he himself is being incompetent in the eyes of that group of men when he becomes general.

There were also some good quotes in the movie that stood out and I wrote down. One is around the 22-minute marker when somebody says “you can’t be the consciousness for everybody”. Similar to this, I think it’s Zapata who says “I don’t want to be the consciousness of the world, I don’t want to be the consciousness for anybody”. This made me think of presidents throughout the world. It might seem rather obvious to write this but nations are put on the shoulders of one man or woman, granted, lots of people are involved in a country functions but at the end of the day we all point the finger at one person. The notion of leaders is pretty much following that one persons consciousness. Today it’s hard to say how much of a leaders consciousness directs his actions since political agendas are more important, but in Zapata’s case I think that his consciousness led him to fight for what he believed was right. This leads to my next quote from the movie that is, “a man can be honest and completely wrong”. When I read this quote I am inclined to relate it to the dilemmas of leadership. One person’s view of “right” is another persons “wrong”. Lastly, at the end of the film we hear that “there are no leaders but yourselves”. Although this class is about revolution, we always tend to relate revolutions around the worlds past with leaders. Leaders and leadership is a big part of revolution, and it’s a word that I think was left out of the board from the discussion of our very first class.

I wasn’t quite sure what to expect going into Viva Zapata!, knowing it was both written by John Steinbeck – a figurehead of American socialism – and produced in the heyday of McCarthyism. Despite having now seen film, I still find it hard to ascribe it any kind of clear-cut ideological line. If anything, Viva Zapata! seems both desperate to say something relevant while trying not to come across as political in any way.

There is no question as to the film’s overwhelmingly sympathetic depiction of Emiliano Zapata. Portrayed as dashing and charismatic, his moral integrity is shown as unwavering throughout the Mexican Revolution. The Revolution itself is clearly a righteous cause according to the film, which depicts President Porfirio Diaz’s regime as corrupt and repressive, incapable of dealing out justice and actively destroying the livelihoods of the farmers in Morelos. However, the film is no less critical of the following regimes, and even under the presidency of Zapata himself, the government is inevitably unable to restore stolen lands to the impoverished Morelenses. None of the power structures established after an armed uprising are satisfactory, as they all seem to reproduce the same patterns of oppression as Diaz’s regime. This could almost be seen as a rejection of the concept of “rule from above”, which is seen as both inefficient and corruptible.

However, the own characters shown to be embracing such radical positions are Francisco Madero and Fernando Aguirre, neither of whom end up rejecting representative democracy when in power. Madero is initially presented as critical of the concept of representative democracy, as Aguirre quotes him as writing that “Elections are a farce, the people have no voice in government, control is in the hands of one man and those he has appointed”. While Zapata trusts him at first, as soon as Madero enters office he finds himself overwhelmed by the responsibilities of power, and refuses to change the institutions that were in place under Diaz. Worse, he fails to notice the coup general de la Huerta and his officers are plotting against him, despite their intentions being barely concealed. Madero thus comes across as naïve, blinded by his own idealism and almost comically bad at spotting his own enemies, and he ultimately fails to restore peace.

At first, Fernando Aguirre also seems ideologically driven, but his true intentions are only revealed towards the end of the film. He is presented as a radical intellectual working alongside Madero, although he quickly sides with Zapata when he sees the new president’s hold on power loosen. He also shows disdain towards the customs and general lack of organisation of Zapata’s followers, and seems unable to unable to understand the common people. As it turns out, all his actions were meticulously calculated to get him into a secure position of power, and he shows no second thoughts when ordering Zapata’s assassination. I can’t help but see him in particular as a critique of radical left-wing intellectualism, which Kazan and Steinbeck contrast with the agrarian simplicity of Zapata’s way of life.