My response to Leah's blog numero siete

This is a very interesting blog to me, because like you, I did not know much if anything about Henequen plants when Stark mentioned them. I also did not have those pictures in my head of what the plant would look like, because in my head a cactus is one of those typical big cactus' with the two arms branching off and upward. It is really nice to see what it actually is, and even more so, to see it being made and processed. Isn't it strange to think of all the things that can be used to make very similar objects? You managed to make the process of twine-making more interesting than it ever was to me before hand, and so good job to you!

Blog number 7, I'll make a man out of you

I am going back to the Disney theme again this week for my inspiration in this weeks blog. I knew since Monday when prof. Stark told us about women who disguised themselves as men in order to fight in the Mexican Revolution that I wanted to take the time to talk about that. Stark gave us the specific example of Petra Herrera, who disguised herself as a man not only to fight in the war, but to be treated with the respect and opportunity of a man at war. We then learned that she moved up the ranks to colonel for the leadership she displayed and effort she put in. She then revealed herself to actually be a woman, and was treated with the respect that she deserved afterward as a result of her efforts and not her gender. Hua Mulan is a legendary Chinese heroine portrayed in the Disney movie Mulan known for doing the same thing in the war against the Huns that Herrera did in the Mexican revolution. Mulan, fearing for her fathers life, and irritated by the inability of women to join the army signed up as a man, and is shown in the movie struggling to keep up at first. But then she concentrated and really put her mind to it, and ends up being better than even her leader in the training camp. Everyone respects her now for what she has shown on the battlefield. She is found out to be a woman and is at first shunned for this, but then she then kills the leader of the Huns and is given the highest award possible in the military by the emperor himself. Regardless of her gender, she has shown her worth on the battlefield and is given a reward like any man in the same position would have received. In both situations, the woman disguised herself to fight for what she believed in, proved her worth, and was rewarded despite their gender. I find this very interesting because it happened so similarly, yet so far away in distance and time, but still shows almost the exact same moral of no matter who you are, you deserve a chance, and if you succeed, you will be rewarded like any other person in the same position. In fact, this apparently occurs often enough in history to have a wikipedia page titled: List of wartime cross-dressers. It is pretty clear that women could handle the fighting expected, and wanted to help with the war-efforts all throughout history.

My Response to Elena's blog number 6

I liked your blog this week because it is a good continuation of what we did with propaganda in class this past week. I feel like the picture you found is very similar to the one we saw in class with Uncle Sam reaching over towards Cuba and the Caribbean from the U.S. The eagle, much like Uncle Sam is a very well known symbol for the US, and the way that it is preying upon Latin America with the same kind of greed, and negative atmosphere that is shown is very similar to the picture with Uncle Sam. I don't really know if there is significance behind the bird standing in Africa versus the US or Latin America, but the general symbolism is very similar. I think there may also be a connection between the eyes, and the way that Uncle Sam looks greedy versus the eagle looking borderline evil with the read, squinting, evil eyes. Both images show the US intervention in a negative light and I just felt like connecting the two images, and that's all I really have to say about that.

Blog number 6: Communism or Robin Hood-ism

Once more I shall make a reference to a Disney movie in Robin Hood commonly known for the saying; "steal from the rich and give to the poor". The movie Viva Zapata also represents these ideals in the way that Zapata and his followers intend to steal the land from the rich men and return to the valleys that they grew up in. Although there is a difference here between the two movies in the fact that the lands once belonged to Zapata and his men, the same idea is present in both movies where society is better when everyone has the same, and no one is left behind anyone else. Big John in the Disney movie is the very rich King who has much more than all of his subjects, and he represents the opposite of communism where one person has a lot more than anyone else, and it is not fair at all. On the other hand, Robin hood represents the lower classes and their desires to be better off than they are. In Viva Zapata the president and the rich men represent the desires of the rich to be better than others versus Zapata who represents the communistic view of everyone sharing the land equally.


During the red scare, everyone seemed to think that Zapata and his men did indeed represent communistic views, and the reputation of the director took a direct hit as a result of this connection to communism. Now that being said, is it really communistic to think that Zapata wants the land was unfairly taken from his men to be returned to them? Is this really communism in the movie? Or is it like this glorified "Robin hood-ism"? If you ask many people, they would say that Robin Hood is the hero of his movie, and is loved by the vast majority of viewers. Finding someone who dislikes the character Robin Hood is a difficult task. That being said, Robin Hood represents more communistic views than Zapata in that what he is taking and giving never belonged to those recieving the benefits. The fact is that Robin Hood is a communist, but a heroic one who is not only not disliked, but actually loved for his actions by the viewers of Robin Hood.


And so my question becomes: is Zapata communist (meaning he would be looked down upon in our society), or are his actions deserving of the glorified treatment that Robin Hood recieves (Robin hood-ism)? I for one feel that both Robin Hood and Zapata's actions are beneficial to everyone, and that perhaps both deserve to be seen in a better light than communistic, such as Robin hood-istic.

My response to Jacqueline's blog number 5

In my opinion, the simple answer to your question is no, this raceless nation remains even today to be idealistic and improbable. I agree completely on your comment about applications asking for race, I think it is wrong, and goes against that idea of equality that we have been striving for for years. But it goes beyond that, last year I was looking through my school's collection of scholarship applications and it is more than just asking for race, but there are applications that are only open to people of a specific race, and that is the way it is going to be. Even if we get to the point where we can remove race from applications and that sort of thing there is still the issue of stereotypes like you said, which in my opinion have an even smaller likelihood of ever going away. The first thing many people do upon meeting a new person is create this idea of who they are, despite knowing they should not do that, it happens anyway, and what is the most outward appearance to make that initial judgement off if not race? I simply feel that it is simply to far ingrained in our society at this point to ever realistically think that we can have a raceless nation. One can look at the leaders like Mandela, Gandhi, and King all one wants, but how can you take their movements as improvements to society when the other side of the spectrum is represented simultaneously by the leadership of Castro, Hitler, Jong-un, Stalin, and Putin? For each man who fights for that equal, ideal, raceless nation, there is a man pushing from the other side for the segregated and unequal life, and the media and modern technology makes sure we all know about it.


 'Raceless' to me goes beyond equality, and beyond stereotypes, I think that raceless is just to ideal of an image where not only are we all equal, but we are all one in the same. The day that someone can meet a new person and not see race, the day that one can sit at a table with everyone else and have no negative or positive thoughts based on appearance is the day that a raceless nation has arrived. However good luck with that when stereotypes and media are flushing your mind with all those thoughts that you are not supposed to have about other people. The only chance for a raceless nation is one in which there literally - not figuratively or theoretically - is no difference in race among humans.

Blog number 5, when to help

During professor Stark's part of the class we talked a lot this week about U.S. intervention into foreign affairs and things like when if ever is it okay for the U.S. to butt into another countries business, with or without their asking for it. I look at this subject in a strange way, in fact sometimes I can't even convince myself which side of the argument I want to be on in this situation. However, I am generally for U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, so long as the situation calls for the intervention.


With regards to countries like Cuba, I think that the U.S. was correct in joining the conflict for a few reasons. First off, I see Cuba both as a potential friend, and a potential enemy of the U.S., and frankly, I feel as though our leaving Cuba is what lead to the conditions there are today. I feel like had we stayed there and fixed things up and protected our economic investments, then perhaps Cuba is our friend today, or maybe even a state. I also feel that the proximity to the U.S. and the potential of a threat to the U.S. in Cuba also justifies intervention, because if we are there to stop communism in the first place, then we do not have to worry about it decades later and into the present. Had it been an issue of invading Peru or Afghanistan like today then maybe I would not be so in favor of joining, but the proximity of a nation in danger leads me to believe invading was in our best interest.


For the Dominican Republic, I also felt as though invading for a short period of time was a smart decision there as well. Although professor Serrata and the Dominican people may disagree, I once again feel as though the proximity to the U.S., and the threat of Haiti spreading to the other half of the island was just cause to invade for a short period of time. Once again, it is an issue of closeness to the U.S., and the threat of an enemy developing that leads me to believe that invading in the Caribbean was the correct move for short periods of time.


The issue of a humanitarian crisis to me is of less importance than is threat to the U.S.. I simply feel as though governing bodies like the United Nations were created to stop that type of thing, so why is it automatically the U.S.'s duty to send in our own men to fight for the cause? It should be the duty of the whole world to come together and share the burden if the humanitarian crisis needs to be stopped. If the U.S. deems it a humanitarian crisis and goes to fight then whats stopping us from invading China, or North Korea, or Cuba, or even Russia? Just because humans are not treated with the same respect as they are here is not justification to fight a war, unless the U.S. feels threatened.


For me, foreign intervention all comes down to feeling threatened, not feeling obligated.

My Response to Lauren's blog number 4

I saw the terms half breeds and mystical creatures and instantly thought of Harry Potter. Then I read the rest of your blog and realized that I would actually be able to make a connection to Harry Potter. Like you said, Cecilia herself is a mulatto, but yet she refers to her mulatto friends as half bloods in a demeaning manner. Now lets think of the Half-Blood Prince, Severus Snape, who himself is a half blood like Cecilia. Now as many of us probably know, Snape is a good guy in the end, but for the majority of the series that is not known, and Snape allies himself with the Death eaters who despise and hunt those who lack pure wizard blood. Although Snape is half-blood, we see him ally himself with those of a higher status than himself. We see Cecilia do a similar thing, where she is clearly "half-blood" herself in her mulatto nature, but sees herself as white, as a higher standing than her own friends who have a darker skin than herself, which would put her also as higher standing.

Blog number 4: Party Time

While reading and talking about Cecilia this week in class, especially the later chapters that revolve around a party, I couldn't help but think of all the other parties I have read about in literature through high school. This majestic party atmosphere is a setting fairly common in literature, regardless of where the novel came from. What I mean by that is that while reading I was thinking about the connections between Cecilia and here party, and other novels or plays where a party takes center stage. American writer Fitzgerald and The Great Gatsby is an excellent example of a party being the center. Shakespeare liked to do this as well, whether it was the Taming of the Shrew, Hamlet, or Romeo and Juliet, the party always gives the story a good, public location for events to happen. George Bernard Shaw's Pygmalion also utilizes a party as the coming out for Elisa after her transformation to a classy woman. My point in saying all of this, and listing a bunch of classic novels and poems is in saying that this concept of a party offering a location for events to occur is an idea that is very common to literature. The party offers a public location like I said before, but it also creates an immediate public reaction, so when events occur, they immediately offer consequences as a direct result. So, what we see here is that no matter where the author comes from, no matter their background, parties still offer a great place for the plot of a story to unfold or become relevant.