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.