I personally did not enjoy this novel. It just went on and on telling events here and there. As mentioned in class, this felt more like a diary and thus there wasn’t this structure and I just got a bit bored. Nevertheless, as usual there were some interesting parts that I would like to share. On page 9 there is this section that says “He didn’t hate the Jefe (Villa), he told her, but he never liked to hear people praise him. He thought that Villa was just like anyone else and that when the day came for him to die, he would die just like the others”. It is interesting how here we are being challenged to not idolize Villa as some sort of heroic unique figure and to treat him like a commoner. I think has become a common antic where in history people have praised a particular figure only to find out that he/she was no better than anyone else or did not accomplish what he/she promised to do. Maybe people are starting to lose faith in leaders, such as politicians. Yes, we see that happening a lot nowadays. We become disenchanted and lose faith in them. And the problem with idolizing someone is we steer away from what’s really important such as ideals or goals that as a society, we are striving to achieve. We see this exact problem of idolizing on the same page further down. It says, “He was such a bully that he terrified them all. One day he said to Mama, this bird is a real Pancho Villa. Mama didn’t say anything, but when Bustillos left, she would caress her Pancho Villa every day. The dove, after his reputation as Pancho Villa got around, was found dead one day with his head shot off”. This dove, which is usually associated as a peaceful animal, is given these qualities of power, might, fear, traits that are associated to Pancho Villa. We are being asked to idolize and praise Villa for such qualities. And yet, in this quote, there is also a bit of foreshadowing when it mentions that the dove dies. This could be taken as Villa being killed by the Mexican government. And once again showing that in the end he was just a regular guy, or someone who was actually not that strong as people thought, that he got killed. Finally, page 18 shows us another interesting quote, “Herrera railed on against the accused who, standing in front of the cemetery wall and facing a firing squad, raised his hat aloft, stood up straight, and said that he was dying for a cause different from the revolution”. This is interesting because we are being challenged to think what the revolution meant, what were really its goals. Because, here it says that this man was dying for a cause different from the revolution. Could this be possible?? Overall, these examples that I’ve chosen to select seem to challenge this idolizing of leaders and of the revolution, asking us to have an open mind and not see/view the revolution as one thing or in black and white. This is just one aspect of the novel that I found interesting to address.

Underdogs is a novel that looks at the Mexican Revolution through the perspective of the revolutionaries who were fighting against the government. There were those supporting Zapata in the south, and those supporting Villa in the north. Both though were revolting against Porfirio Diaz dictatorship which had taken away their land. Therefore, one of the key defining aspects of the Mexican Revolution was this fight for land, for land was not only a part of identity, but it was also a symbol of wealth, a means to cultivate and trade with others their agricultural goods. It was also, however, associated with having a job and was also deeply tied to family life. Therefore, not having land was not just a problem; it also posed a threat to family life and survival who without it would have no means of food, or wealth to buy things. This problem goes back to our discussion on the Communist Manifesto in regards to inequalities, expropriation of land, and class struggles between the bourgeoisie (who in this case is the government) and the rural proletariat (the campesinos or famers). This blog is not intended to be historical or explanatory, but to emphasize once again certain recurring themes such as class struggle, revolutions, land, inequalities, power, and capitalism. I would however like to bring to attention some things that I found interesting about this novel. To start off, I would like to talk about the names of the characters, some of which have this high-status, honorable connotation. For example, Demetrio, Anastasio, Pancracio, War Paint, and Luis Cervantes who got his name from Miguel de Cervantes who if you don’t know, was a very famous Spanish writer, also author of Don Quijote. It seems as if by giving the characters these well-thought of names, the author is giving more meaning and clarity into the revolution and its cause. There is also something I appreciated about this novel, and that is how the novel challenged our assumption that the revolutionaries were the “good guys” because they were fighting to bring change and put an end to the despotic regime. What this novel also shows is the more personal stories of the revolutions that we don’t often find in history text books. The revolutionaries it seems were also bad (men) in that they stole, destroyed, and abused women throughout their journey, sort of like scavengers who do not care about the consequences they have on others just that it serves them in some way. This then relates to the title, Underdogs. The title can be directed not only at the Federales or the government itself, but also at the revolutionaries. This revolution, depending on how you look at it, and to what extent you are affected by it, is a story not about humans fighting humans, but of animals fighting animals as neither side behaved well. What I also appreciated about the novel was the numerous references to nature. This is important because once again, land (and nature) played a huge role in people’s lives. It was part of identity, but also of culture. The many references to nature only makes this revolution more of a personal story where people are fighting for something dear to them as they do not want to lose that. As part of the “personal” story, I like how the novel also engages us in the conversations that these soldiers had. History books also don’t tell the conversations, or stories that soldiers shared amongst one another. Certain topics in the novel would come up such as family, fear, politics, humor, songs, money, etc. This once again shows that the revolution is not just about fighting, but it’s about people. As a side note, one other thing I found very interesting was how in one part of the novel, it mentions that there are 2 things men fight to protect: family and their country. We can now add to the Mexican Revolution, this concept of fighting for families as well. And finally, I would like to end with a quote found on page 43 where it says “the revolution is a fight for principles and ideals, not to kill”. I think this challenges one of our main conceptions of revolutions as being violent. According to some people, they don’t want to fight, kill, or cause anyone any harm. All they ultimately want is change, ideals, principles; peace. People make revolutions violent, but it is not necessarily the case that the revolutionaries are for the sole purpose of inflicting pain.

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.

I enjoyed watching the movie Viva Zapata as it did well in describing the historical, social, political and economic situation that characterized Mexico at that time before and during the revolution. It introduced key figures in Mexican history such as President Porfirio Diaz, President Francisco Madero, President Victoriano Huerta, and revolutionaries such as Emiliano Zapata from the southern state of Morelos, and Pancho Villa from the northern state of Chihuahua. However, the main focus was on the revolution and how it began. As this movie shows, the revolution started with the discontentment of the Mexican people over President Diaz authoritarian regime, and then moved to the question of land redistribution. Many Mexicans lost land to the hands of the Mexican government who at that time was using it for business profit. People were starving and poor. Land was not just a symbol of wealth and source of income, it was also engraved in Mexican identity. Throughout history the land was always of the people. Therefore, changing this had a profound impact in the lives of Mexican peasants. Not only was land important for the Mexican people, but regaining it therefore meant restoring justice, peace, and democracy. The revolution started because people thought that the government was not listening to the people’s voices, in other words, because there was no true democracy. The Mexican revolution therefore was a call for social change, for more openness, and for peace. What it also did was it unified people under one single cause, regaining land. Revolution also became an identity, a social marker. This revolution represented what these men and women were fighting for. At the end of the movie before Zapata dies, he talks with his men and his wife who ask him what would become of this movement he created should he die. His response, a “revolution does not need a strong man to lead, but strong people can survive without a leader”. This brings up the point that even if the leader dies, the revolution, or better yet, the spirit or cause, is still alive. Just as a side note therefore, this is why today there is controversy over when or whether or not the Mexican revolution ended. It is all based on subjectivity. But one can argue that even up to this day, the spirit is still strong. Many Mexicans face similar problems that existed back then in regards to property of land being trumped by government and business interests. There were not that many fighting scenes in the movie, however, the scene when Zapata was arrested and dragged by a rope attached to his neck following behind a horse, with Mexican peasant farmers starting to clap their rocks together and follow him, was to me very symbolic of the Mexican revolution. It represented unity, strength, and opposition. What I also liked was how the movie showed Zapata as someone not interested in fame, reputation, or money, rather all he wanted was change and to be able to represent the people he was fighting for. This is actually exactly what Russell Brand said in his interview. He’s not in for status, he just wants to get his idea out.  One other thing I would like to address is that in Latin American history there were times when one could consider some presidents as actually good and open to the people. However, whenever this happened, they were often attacked by their own military men who wanted to establish a more authoritarian way of rule. This is what happened to Francisco Madero. Besides revolution, this movie also addressed the importance of religion in Mexican lives, and class disparities. Overall, I quite enjoyed this movie. Though, having all the actors with their American or English accents kind of gave this historical account less reality and distanced me (more culturally speaking) from Mexican life, which is what this movie is really supposed to be all about. It seemed more like an Anglophone perspective rather than a Mexican, Spanish-speaking perspective.

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.

When I thought of a definition for revolution the first response that came to my mind was it was a political shift, often involving some sort of popular uprising. This is the same sort of way Russell Brand views a revolution. However, after today’s first class I came to realize that it is difficult to pinpoint a clear definition of a revolution. And I think this same problem is common throughout time, space and people.  However, after reading Russell Brand’s essay one of the things that struck me the most was his disinterest and at the same time negative stance towards politics and politicians alike. He views them as self-interested, often elitist, as well as corrupt, deceitful, hypocrites, and apathetic. Although these assumptions may be true, I think it is also amateur talk as it only discredits politics and fails to appreciate what it can actually do for society. We may like or not like a particular politician, a party, a government, or an ideology, but we should at least, at some level, feel compelled as politics is everywhere and directly/indirectly impacts us. However, what I do agree with him is on how politics does not reach out to people, or better yet, that people cannot seem to associate, identify, or connect themselves with politics. This shows that one of politics’ problems is its exclusive and privileged nature. Politics should and must be about the people. Interestingly enough, Russell’s criticisms towards politics play a basis in the makeup of a revolution, that is, there is usually some sort of distrust and fault in the political system that creates a spark. He also mentioned how disruptions, or challenges, are sometimes a good thing. They can serve as a “wake up call”, as indicators of where we are at, how we are doing, and what we can do. Despite his seemingly critical stance on certain issues, I appreciate how he ended on a more positive note. He mentioned that “we need a unifying and inclusive spiritual ideology”, and that change can only come from within. Actually, I think it would be better to think of it as change starting from within, but then materializing from the outside. I also liked how he said that “to genuinely make a difference we must first become different”. Having differences is both beneficial and productive. If we all thought the same way we would not advance that much. But being different also calls for courage. Lastly, going back to some more definitions of a revolution, two important ones are that they are “a movement for the people by the people”, and that it is “a revolution of consciousness”.

Briefly discussing David Graeber’s essay I noticed how it was more concrete than theoretical or conceptual as Russell Brand made it. In particular, David Graeber looked at revolution through a contemporary lense; such as neoliberalism, globalization, consumerism, environment, poverty, all of which make a perfect revolutionary demand. His conception of revolution is based more on these forces that cause inequalities, rather than mainly attacking the political system. He sees that nowadays there are more protests and demonstrations. Therefore, can these demonstrations lead to or be considered as revolutions? I liked how he left us with a question on what a revolution might actually look like, and I think that that has a lot to do with understanding what a revolution is and what its causes are. I also liked how he mentioned that “revolutions transform basic assumptions about what politics is ultimately about”. Going back to Russell’s essay where he talks about the relationship between revolutions and politics. On a final note however, I would like to address what Russell and David both said about demonstrations, and how fundamentally they have a lot to do with revolutions. They both said that being part of a demonstration, you actually feel connected, and that the people surrounding you are there for the same reason you are. There is this common identity and struggle. And I think this is another way we can look revolutions. Ultimately, what both these essays have done is look at, and try to understand revolutions through different perspectives at least I think so.