I found this text to be one of the most interesting that we have read so far, in regards to both revolutionary aspects but on the critique on the current status of our society in some aspects. The two aspects of it which struck me the most is the aspect of “I” and the concept of real world relationships and communities and their cyberization. The concept of the “I” and the constant need for an individual to identify themselves has become more of a marketing scheme than an actual social necessity or movement. The whole concept that society has created the need for each person to be unique only furthers a capitalist agenda by attributing an “I” state to things like wearing clothes as if they were one of the defining factors in originality. This necessity for each person to feel as though they are individual is needed as it drives for unique ideas and concepts into society, but the current societal trend is one that is putting commercial values on the value of self which defeats the purpose for one to search for an “I” state. This combined with the trend that society has slowly shifted into viewing social interactions as though they were directly connected to the internet. The changing of how social interactions and the concept of “I” have been so heavily influenced by society, a society that itself is heavily influenced by capitalism.

So what can one do to combat a society that has become so heavily influenced by capitalism and other influences that seek to directly profit from your cooperation. In my opinion and somewhat ironically is to have the ability to create your own “I” self which is one that is disconnected from society. One does not need any sort of social validation for one to be happy, as Insurrection states, “‘depression’ is not a state, but a passage” it is okay to be discontent with society and the way that it represents you in its structure. Without this discontent or disconnection that one feels towards society then they can never be free from its influence, an influence that tries to push you into conforming in order to benefit from you. I’m not saying that one should leave society and become a hermit in the mountains or something, but to break away from the mainstream of society to distance oneself from the overly capitalistic state which we find ourselves in everyday of our lives. By doing so and creating your own identity one which is separate from society, and if enough people do that then they might be able to confront and change the way that society currently functions.

The article The Colonialism of the Present talks about the involvement of the Canadian government in regards to the lives and communities of Canada’s First Nations population. The whole concept on whether or not the First Nations were colonized or are still being colonized is brought up. While bringing this up it talks about the Oka Crisis which can be seen as the one of the biggest armed struggles between a First Nations population and the Candian government. The relationship that First Nations and the Canadian government have is a long and shaky one, ranging from true European colonization to the limitation of First Nations rights through the Indian Act, even most recent attempts to improve the relationship have only furthered the complexity between the two. Even recently is has become heated again, in regards to the use of First Nations land for oil pipelines or the extraction of other natural resources. The claim for the land is something that we have extensively looked at throughout class. By looking at this complicated relationship that the First Nations have with the government, what options do they have to solve their issues. When reflecting on their dilemma, I thought of a similarity that the First Nations have with the Zapatistas of Mexico

By looking at this complicated relationship that the First Nations have with the government, what options do they have to solve their issues. When reflecting on their dilemma, I thought of a similarity that the First Nations have with the Zapatistas of Mexico. The Zapatistas are like the First Nations that they aim to gain independence from the influence of the government, but unlike the First Nations, they have actively fought through armed resistance. Although the Zapatistas have not gained their own independence yet, they have gained a sort of influence in southern Mexico and there have been attempts and communications with the Mexican senate in regards to their demands. So the question is, do the First Nation communities need armed conflict for them to progress with the Canadian government. The concept of armed conflict is a dangerous one to discuss and, even more, to put into motion, but when all other options are exhausted it becomes of the few possibilities. Throughout class was have seen examples of armed conflicts succeeding yet also failing but in most of those examples we see these armed conflicts erupting in less-westernized countries. So the idea that armed conflict could arise in Canada is a scary thought, but it could be a possibility if First Nation communities feel that they have reached their limit in regards to negotiations with the government much like the Zapatistas.

The book Fire from the Mountain talks about the Nicaraguan revolution, through an almost first-hand approach by a guerrilla fighter. Even though we have seen recounting of other revolutions we usually see them from a perspective of the general like Che or the international point of view of the United States. The struggle of the guerrillas in Nicaragua is one that is different than other retellings that we have read about, the narrator is not a symbol or an idol for his fellow revolutionaries but just a simple man trying to change the future of Nicaragua. Even his introduction into the mountain is that of a normal guerilla fighter, it is not heroic like that of Che’s or Castros arrivval to Cuba.

This notion that the mountains become the home and their only sanctuary while they risk their lives for the revolution. This realism that all guerrillas face that although the mountains provide for them they are just on the mountain, fighting more for their own lives than the revolution. At one point in the book, the author mentions how his eyes memorized all the trees in the mountain by their shape and shadows, this immersion into the life of the guerrilla is made most evident by this. The connection to the mountain establishes a link between the guerrillas and Indigenous identity in Nicaragua. The mountain isn’t the catalyst that allows the guerrillas to fight, but it is how the myth of the guerrillas was born. The author quotes Che statement of the guerilla fighter, once you enter into the guerillas you stay there… until victory or death, this notion that the mountain is his new home and his new way of life is made clear.

Although the revolution wasn’t an indigenous uprising but more centered on the overthrowing of a dictator, the involvement of indigenous groups was huge. The oppression of the government only pushed people into the mountains because of this myth. The myth of the guerrillas although romanticized by the public is exactly how the guerrillas become accepted by the public.  Although it was the general public that pushed for the political movement to arise, it was the myth of the mountain and of the guerrillas that gave them strength. This relationship that the people and the mountain has is what allowed for the guerrillas to gain traction. This connection with the public and the connection with the moutain plays heavily into the Indigenous culture of Nicaragua, by tapping into this it only further promotes the cause to those suffuring the most form government. This book is different from the rest that we have read in a way that it does not try to sell us the revolution, but presents the revolution through the life of an individual. It is through the eyes of that individual that we see how the revolution took place, it is not the opinions of the vanguard or generals that he belives, but that he has the potential to change Nicaragua for the better.