El libro “y no se lo trago la tierra” me gusto mucho, en clase hablamos que el personaje al final no era realmente un viejo sino un niño y que solo era una expresión y eso cambio mucho como percibí el final del libro, pero en general me gusto mucho uno de mis compañeros recalco como hacen sentir a los mexicanos y como los americanos lo tratan mal, después menciono si en Canadá había un grupo similar que se sintiera igual. Creo que aunque Canadá tiene muchos defectos y también hay racismo creo que un grupo en especifico no exigiste puesto que Canadá en si es un país compuesto de diferencia raciales y es algo que como país nos diferencia de otros. Creo que aquí la diferencias están mas aceptadas. Creo que Estados Unidos podían aprender mucho de la manera de ser de Canadá.

The overwhelming sentiment running through the individual tales of this book is tragic. The second half chronicles a betrayed love-induced suicide, a burning truck of Mexican workers, a house-ridden mother who suffers extreme anxiety and encounters blatant racism when she finally gathers the courage to venture into white America, and a sheisty businessman who tricks his own people not only out of money, but of beloved personal memories as well. This unforgiving view of the Mexican and Chicano experience on the northern side of the border is what gives the book its appeal as a genuine account.

However, Rivera takes a turn towards the hopeful in the last chapters of the novel. By entering into the minds of various passengers aboard a stopped truck, we are privy to a broader perspective, and I think the sense of community that Rivera wants to portray becomes much more obvious. Personal suffering is transformed into public compassion and acceptance. The end of chapter “morals” that the author provided us with throughout the book often had a negative note, but the final one we are given is undoubtedly positive. It speaks of a traveling Mexican poet who incorporates specific people from his community into his work and reads it to them aloud, creating not only a sense of interconnectedness, but of love and hope as well.

Of course, the final entry solidifies this idea, as we realize that, indeed, all of the events retold in the book were interrelated and contained within a fairly small group of families. The narrator, although remembering some harrowing stories, comes to a point of inner peace and joyfulness at the simple thought of being part of a community, and his only desire is to join all of these people in a massive embrace. He realizes that the key to a happy existence is inclusion, not segregation, an important message for Americans (and people in general) of all backgrounds.

Wow, so it would appear based on my last two entries that I am starting to see the world in a somewhat cheesy new light. Hahahaha. Sorry, I just watched Zeitgeist: Addendum and I really can’t help it. Also, I think I actually believe it.

Despues de haber leido “Y no se lo trago la tierra…,” me pregunto como la experiencia para el inmigrante labrador Mexicano ha cambiado en los ultimos cincuenta anos. Esta este libro, escrito en los anos cincuenta, aun relevante? Para exploraciones historicos, diria yo que por supuesto, si. Pero significa algo para los chicanos de hoy?
Yo ne se una repuesta concreta por este pregunta. Yo se que todavia sigue el uso del poder manual de la clase de inmigrantes ilegales por fabricas y fincas agriculturales porque es posible pagarles mucho menos de la cantidad preescribida por el gobierno. Y yo se que sigue el peligro para mucho de ellos porque no no reciben cuida medical ni por sus empleadores ni el gobierno, y estoy casi seguro que no pueden producirlo con sus ganancias. Tambien, mucho de sus puestos de trabajo, como los en las carnicerias (este aprendi en “Fast Food Nation”) llevan mucho risgo corporal.
Pero al mismo tiempo, el racismo explicito en norte america ha disminuido en los ultimos anos por varios grados, al meos en unos lugares y ciudades. En San Francisco, CA, por ejemplo, hay una programa llamada “Haven City” lo cual manda que las politicas oficiales de la ciudad manda que ningun inmigrante ilegal puede ser deferido al gobierno federal, lo cual no tiene ningun tolerancia para ellos. En la programa de “Haven City”, los inmigrantes tienen aceso al cuidanza medical y a la educacion. Tambien estan libres a llamar a la policia sin tener miedo de que la policia vayan a arrestar a ellos.
Parece a mi que la situacion en los Estados Unidos para los inmigrantes ha mejorado, pero todavia experimentan el racismo y tratamiento como ciudadanos de segunda clase por mucha gente y por el gobierno federal. Pero, estan parecidas las experiencias de los inmigrantes de hoy a los en el libro? Para algunos, probablemente, para los que trabajan en el campo tal vez. Pero no para todos. Los que vienen a los ciudades, en particular, los como San Francisco o Los Angeles, legalmente o no, tienen una experiencia muy diferente, imagino. Y para estos inmigrantes urbanos, esta tan importante una historia oral como para los agriculturales? No se. Tienen tanta solidaridad? No se tampoco.

If you have not seen the movie, go and see the movie. Koerner Reserve section. And the Earth Did Not Swallow Him (1995).

As one of many class members who struggled a bit with the fact that this already obscure and abstract text was written in another language, I benefited greatly from seeing the movie. It really helped to tie things up for me and assured me I was on the right track… that I understood the novel properly. The movie remains fairly faithful to the novel, as much as is possible anyway, due to the abstract and disjointed nature of the text. The vignettes are more chronological in order and the story is slightly more focused on the perspective of Marcos, the young boy, than the Mexican American workers on the whole. The feeling you get from watching the movie, however, and the general expressive purpose are both very true to those intended by Rivera in the novel. The plight of the oppressed Chicano is very well presented and the injustice and hypocrisy of the entire situation are brought to the forefront.

One of the moments that struck me the most, in both the book and movie, was when the young boy points out in frustration that the Mexican Americans are always saying “when we arrive… when we arrive… ” (104) and yet they never really arrive. They are a displaced peoples. They have no true home, no true identity, no place to which they ever feel they properly belong. Their lives are a constant struggle, a constant frustration as they live on the oppressive terms of others.

I feel as though the young boy, called Marcos in the movie, is so very insightful for a child. And I think it definitely has to do with the hardships he has endured at such a young age. The discrimination he has faced and the injustice he has encountered have made him old before his time. The child has seen so much and suffered so intensely that terrifying entities such as God and the devil don’t incite the same kind of daunting, immobilizing fear in him as they do in the average child. He has the nerve to call the devil and to declare that there is no God to his devout Catholic mother. The child is truly remarkable and his harrowing life experiences have shaped him to be the introspective, inquisitive young soul that he is by the end of the novel.

Rivera’s style of writing this novel was, and I have to concede with many of my classmates, a rather intimate and unprecedented approach unlike that of anything I’ve read in the past. How does it affect the reader in ways similar and different than that of the other novel Who would have thought it? I’d begin with the context of both plots—in one, we have the character of Lola, an exceptionally intelligent young girl of Mexican descent who really has no idea of what Mexican culture means nor has any particular ties with Mexicans. She suffers somewhat, yet the book is largely one focused on class, and we can infer that she is not the only who faces discrimination, there also exists Mrs. Norvall bound to the ropes of her gender role. In And the Earth Did Not Swallow him, we experience exclusively the struggles, meanderings and injustices of Mexican-Americans. In terms of spirituality And the Earth Did Not Swallow him has heavier religious themes, yet no particular sect is mentioned unlike in Who Would Have Thought It? where predominately we enjoy the likes of WASPS and little else.

And the earth did not swallow him is rich with emotion not difficult to detect, I would say there is little ambivalence in the inherent pains this protagonist (or the multitude of them) suffers from. He does not get the education he deserves despite being just as intelligent as anyone else. He does not enjoy the occasional or even sole anglo-saxon companion to help him or at least wish him out of his turmoil, allowing for quite a depressing read if you were to read the novel as a character study or as a mere tale. However, it’s not a character study, and I believe that it’s important that one reads the book in not an objective way but, how shall I phrase it, a manner that’s detached from your conventional method of analysis. What I mean by that is there is no omniscience to refer to, there is somewhat of a definitive protagonist, but his thoughts are few and far between with respect to lineage and development. That being said, we have to use Rivera’s written emotion and let it meddle with your own to comprehend the messages this book is conveying, and even those are somewhat cryptic. Rivera does not seek to evoke just our sympathy, his story is an edification to the hardships experienced by classes we as readers may have been unaware even existed.

Note that Rivera ends the novel with intended ambiguity rather than a generic conclusion or an attempt to encompass the sruggles of Mexican-Americans. It would be easy to say that it ends with a feeling of hope, which on an elementary level it does, but I would say that it ends with a spiritual awakening, of an acceptance that life will never be perfect, at least in his lifetime. His cries for help may not be answered, but he can soothe them with his own growth.

Wow, I’m still reeling with all kinds of thoughts and emotions after finishing this book. (sorry I’m posting this so late again!!) Rivera’s portrayal of the protagonists’ life is so painfully raw, and his method of narration, through the eyes of the child, is powerful. The reader is able to see the reality, stripped bare of adult-like pretences and reservations, of the boys’ struggle with religion, poverty, racism, and lack of acceptance and self worth; all of which are under the umbrella of his (slowly decreasing) child-like naivety.

A lot of the everyday battles faced by the protagonist are reflected in today’s society. For example his own frustration and anger in asking why, if God existed, he would let bad things happen to good people. He feels that God simply does not care, and maybe even does not exist. There is a sense of hopelessness here; a sense of refusal to accept his mother’s belief that God does exist and that he allows things to happen for reasons which may not be understood but on the other hand, that he has a special plan in the afterlife for impoverished people such as themselves.

At the end of the novel, we read that the boy comes to grips with his own reality…one that does not include God. He decides that he is able to figure everything out on his own and that he doesn’t need to hide in the naivety of his “darkness” anymore. With the boy having grown up with an understanding of the Christian religion that was very oppressive, it is understandable that he desires to be free from it. This, however, is frustrating because even though throughout this book there are people who have changed and manipulated the message of hope and grace that Christianity is said to offer, one can suggest that the foundation of this religion reveals a pure faith that there is a God who loves and saves and who does not condemn those that belong to him. The portrayal of Christianity in this book, which is so jaded, twists grace into condemnation which in turn, understandably, forces the boy to push away from his childhood beliefs as well as the hope that has been offered to him.

I was looking at the cover for quite awhile, trying to find the words to describe the book entirely. I started thinking that what appeared to be a dragon might actually be “el Diablo”. But I thought the devil did not come despite the boy calling him.

The book uses dialogue to portray events in the boy’s life. Dialogue with the unseen such as the devil, the ramble in the boy’s head and the conversations in the truck all seem to have a communicative effect that reaches beyond the conventional narrative. While I was reading “Cuando lleguemos”, I felt like I could almost hear the voices of the people in the truck. They resemble streams of consciousness. Their inner thoughts are so diverse yet limited to that of the adults only. The readers do not know what the children are thinking. The book has been told from the perspective of a young boy trying to understand the adult world. Like most things in this book, the dialogue seems to be confined within the minds of the adults. And through Rivera’s writing, their voice is heard.

Unquestionably, Tomas Rivera is criticizing the role that religion plays in the lives of the migrant workers. Since religion is an inherent part of the lives of the characters, it is inevitably a part of almost every story. And Rivera seems to think that religion is one of the oppressive factors keeping the migrant workers in the vicious cycle of a troublesome life full of exploitation and suffering. He criticizes the Church on a moral level: the chapter in which the protagonist sees the nun and the priest making love in the sastreria puts emphasis on its hypocrisy. The young man is trying to find out who he is, his place in society, and religion is a huge obstacle to this. Taught that sex is a sin, something dirty and base, he is told to deny himself and one of the core elements of his identity. He criticizes religion at a grassroots level – where priests find it more important to take donations for the parish fund than to address problems in the community, the problems that Rivera is describing for us.
Rivera takes a very existentialist view on life: the protagonist must make his own live, take control of his own destiny, and break away from the vicious migrant cycle which is partly imposed by religion.
The protagonist questions good and evil…he asks: what is good? what is evil? He curses God and calls out for the Devil, and sees that life is arbitrary, that religion doesn’t have control of his life. He questions his mother’s belief that there is really a God out there who will grant your wishes if you are good and punish you if you are bad. What kind of God is that, he asks?
In the very end, when he climbs out from under the house, he is free from this oppression…he smiles because he realizes that he is free, he is in control, it is his life to live and no one else’s…that he hasn’t lost anything, and that everything is related….therefore that everything is in his control.

So, I’m back from the movie at the VIFF, “La Frontera Infinita” created in Mexico. It was, well, astounding.I highly recommend it to you all, but I believe I caught the last, and only showing. The documentary follows Mexicans, Salvadorians, Hondurans, and other Central Americans through their journeys and quests from their origins to their destinations (including shelters being built by those whose limbs had been severed by the trek on trains). However, there was no conclusive ending to the documentary, as there was no conclusive ending to Rivera’s novel. And the documentary was at times scattered and scrambled as well, following different people and groups and different times. Perhaps it is because these problems are not clear or resolved, nor will they ever be.

Like one of the men said in the beginning of the movie (this isn’t a direct quote, just what I remember…”there are a thousand mishaps in going north, and one hope. It is that one hope that keeps us going”.

I feel bad for the poor man sitting next to me, because every once and awhile somebody would say something in the film, and I would think “Shit! I-should-write -that-down-so-I-don’t-forget-so-I-can-write-that-in-my-blog”, so I would scramble in my purse to find a pen and paper, substituted with eyeliner and Safeway receipts.

One of the things I scratched onto the receipt was something an middle-aged woman attempting to migrate again to the north said. It was something to the extent of “arm yourself with sticks and stones, because they will try to get you in the north.” Personally, this made me upset and brought up the passage in Rivera’s book in the first half of the novel about the boy being harassed by the gringos. It just made me agree with what another man said in “La Frontera Infinita”…

“Who are the migrants? Who are NOT the migrants?”

That is a question to think about.