Week 4 -The Underdogs

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.

Week 3 – Viva Zapata!

This week we watched Viva Zapata! – a fictionalized film the depicts the life of Emiliano Zapata, a Mexican revolutionary. In the start, Zapata is a simple peasant, coming to President Diaz with his fellow countrymen to complain about having their land stolen. Diaz tells them the courts will handle the matter, but Zapata shows distrust in the system. He eventually helps Madero come into power, overthrowing Diaz in hopes that the land that was taken would return to him and his people. However, while Zapata is rewarded with land, he is displeased because his people’s land isn’t given back to them. Eventually, Zapata comes into power, and a very similar scene occurs again. Countrymen come to complain of land stolen by Zapata’s brother, and Zapata tells them he will deal with it when he has time. Just like Zapata, a man comes forth and stands up to Zapata, and Zapata circles his name just as Diaz circled Zapata’s. Zapata realizes how everything has come full circle and decides to try and change it. Eventually he is killed, becomes a symbol of freedom. He says that things change slowly, through people, not by a leader. If the people are strong together, they don’t need a strong man to lead them. Which is just like we have talked about in our discussions, that change has to come from below the current power.

What is interesting is yet again we see that while people start revolutions with good intentions, they can become corrupted once they themselves hold the power -Zapata’s brother is an example of this, taking what he wants regardless of law because “he is a general and he fought for it.” Some people fight only for themselves, instead of the ideals that they thought they were fighting for. Another point is that some people are in revolutions only for destruction, or to cause chaos. I might be getting this name wrong, (please correct me) but the representative of Madero who eventually works under Zapata and then betrays him (Fernando??) is this person who just wants destruction. He switched sides to whoever would win the fight, so that he could keep fighting.

A few quotes really stuck with me, for different reasons. Zapata says that “a monkey in silk is still a monkey.” Even if someone gains power, it doesn’t mean they have become a good person. While we might root for Zapata, there is at least one thing about him that I can’t get over -his treatment and thoughts on women. While it is made out that he is a romantic, and Josefa swoons over him, he objectifies her. He says that “a man is fire, a women is his fuel” and that “a woman born beautiful is born married.” Both of these sayings reduce women to objects. In his eyes a woman is only there to support a man, and beauty is the main quality of a woman. In the movie, the women seem to like these lines a lot. However, he did not take her by force, as his brother suggested.

 

 

Week 2- Jefferson, Robespierre, Communist Manifesto

I’m finding it rather difficult to understand half of what is being said in these writings, mostly due to lack of historical knowledge, but also in the manner that the excerpts are written. So please excuse me as I stumble my way into pulling out ideas to discuss.

I guess I will start with Jefferson’s “Tree of Liberty” letter. There is one sentence that I would love for someone to make clear to me. In relation to rebellions of Massachusetts , he asks “can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted?” The particularly curious part of this it the word “honourably.” On what side of the rebellion is this referring to? The main  thing that I can take away from this letter is that Jefferson is suggesting that rebellion is a natural and necessary part of keeping the government in check, and protecting public liberty. He mentions that the government is “setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order.” In other words, trying to prevent further uprisings, uprisings that Jefferson deems a natural part of balancing society.

In regards to Jefferson’s letter to Madison, from my understanding of the last paragraph, he talks about the people going to take the navigation of the Mississippi from Spain and take New Orleans. He asks if it would be a good idea to join forces with these people to “correct our error.” He predicts that the citizens of the US will force the rulers to agree to this, but then says he hopes he is mistaken? So at first I thought he was saying that they should help take New Orleans, but now it seems he is against it?

One thing that caught me in Robespierre’s “Justification of the Use of Terror” is when he says that “Terror is nothing other than justice…it is therefore an emanation of virtue.” He goes on to say how the main principle of a despotic government is terror, but that terror should be used to “subdue the enemies of liberty.” But if you use terror, the main principle of a despotic government, in order to create the Republic, then are you not in turn despotic? He says that the “essence of the republic or of democracy is equality,” but how is using terror against others equality?

Pulling these articles together, they all agree that revolution is something that is necessary for change to occur.

 

Week 1 -Russell Brand / David Graeber

So, there is quite a sum to be considered after watching Jeremy Paxman interview Russell Brand and reading Brand’s article on revolution. Clearly Russell Brand is very articulate and filled with great passion, a passion for change. Brand claims to be absolutely against the current state and framework of politics and the Western model of living. He calls for a “[t]otal revolution of consciousness and our entire social, political and economic system.” He writes and speaks like a walking thesaurus, which while impressive and specific, is something that distances himself from many people that he might be trying to reach. Indeed it makes for a lovely story, and may even inspire a few to have the desire to take action, ultimately it is ineffective at doing more. He gives a broad sense that he wants us to take care of the planet and then humanity, but gives no concrete solutions or steps to make the change happen. The only piece of action I really absorb from his rhetoric is to refuse to vote in any elections. Though I fail to see how that will do any good. Brand states that most young people, and people in general do not care about politics. Yet this year, we have seen an increase in voter turnout in the Canadian election, most notably an increase in youth voters. Agreeably, there are several areas of government and the political, and social/economical systems that need to be changed or eliminated in order to close the gap between the rich and the poor, but Brand offers no viable methods to achieve such goals.

Turning my attention to now include Graeber’s article, there are a few ideas introduced here that could take an immense amount of thinking. One idea Graeber mentions allows for re-interpreting “failed” revolutions and showing their effects. For example, he notes that while the anti-war protests did not speed up the U.S. leaving Indochina. However, he shows that because of these protests, “U.S. forces weren’t committed to any major conflict for almost 30 years.” So while the initial actions of those who want a change to happen are seen as failures, it is possible that the effects appear later on. Although, it also created negatives, such as having “the war planners made an almost obsessive effort to ensure the wars were effectively protest-proof.” In essence, the focus of war planners shifted from  winning the war to avoiding opposition and movements for change at home.

I agree with Graeber’s thoughts that if we were to change the way society functions currently, an alternative blueprint with detailed plans are only good to show that change is possible, but can not just be implemented due to the innumerable amount of unforeseen problems that could arise. It is clear that we to change our course and perceptions if we are to save the planet and ultimately the human race from inevitable disaster, though it is no simple task and is constantly fought against.