The Making of Latin America Blog

 This week, I found our discussion of the US and the Cuban Revolution to be very interesting. I had heard and read in the past that the US had tried to meddle in the Revolution in order to bring it down, but I never realized the degree it reached. I found the countless assassination attempts by the US or funded and directed by the US to be particularly bad. I feel that whether or not we disagree with a leader of a foreign nation, we have no business trying to assassinate them. How would the US react if a foreign nation tried to assassinate the president? I can pretty much guarantee it wouldn't be good. I think Fidel Castro said it best himself. In "History Will Absolve Me" from last week, he described how if a nation's government has become tyrannical or is no longer working for the country, it is the people's right and responsibility to get rid of that government. So it's the people's job, not the job of an interfering nearby neighbor, to try to get rid o...

 Hi Amanda! I definitely agree that what we're taught in high school about Fidel Castro doesn't tell the whole story. I feel like my knowledge about him, as well as Cuba, has grown exponentially this week. I always assumed he was just a bad man with bad intentions as you said, but it turns out the story is much more complex than it's made out to be. 

 This week, I found our reading of  History Will Absolve Me by Fidel Castro to be very interesting. I've heard a fair amount about him in the past, but it was always in a negative light due to his tense relations with the United States. It was enlightening to read a speech written by him. It made me realize that he started his revolution on good intentions. He wanted to free the people from the Batista regime and help improve their living conditions, which are good things to do. His story, though, reminds me the idea that people sometimes turn into what they were initially fighting against. In this speech, he makes it clear that the government rules by the will of the people, and that the people have a right or obligation to rebel against oppressive governments. When he finally achieved power, though, he didn't listen to the will of the people as he didn't have elections. Additionally, he used any means he felt necessary to suppress all dissent and opposition, to the point ...

  Hi Annika! I agree that the connection between the two parts of class this week was helpful. It was interesting to learn about the factual parts of Eva Peron's life, but then to see her story portrayed in the novel by Martinez as well. I will admit, though, that the book meshed fact and fiction to the point that it sometimes was hard to tell what was made up and what actually happened.

 This week,  I found the novel Santa Evita to be very interesting. I've never read a book like it and it gave me very mixed feelings as it was a compelling read but was very disturbing at times. One of the passages of the book that struck me was on page 52 where the author says, "if a soul has not been recorded, it is as though it had never existed." This quote is very accurate, and it made me think about how quickly people are forgotten. Eva Peron's life was well recorded in factual and fictional stories. Thus, her existence will continue to live on in the hearts of her admirers for years to come. However, there are so many others in this world that are not recorded. They come and go, and soon no one is left alive that even remembers them. For all intents and purposes, it really is like they never existed. Yet, they did exist, and without these people, the world would not be what it is today. This seems sad, but when I thought about the perpetual hatred directed at s...

  Hi Ben! That's really neat that the topics of two classes coincided like that, and that also sounds like an interesting game to play in a class to help learn. I definitely agree with you that there's more to art than what is immediately seen. I often struggle finding the deeper meanings in art, but it can be fascinating to learn about the messages an art piece can carry.

 Similar to last week, I found our continued discussion on the Mexico during and after its revolution to be interesting. The particular question that I was thinking about was "what does a nation do after a revolution?" I think the post-revolution time for any nation is extremely difficult. Mexico had spent years with constant fighting and battles, and now it was supposed to return to some semblance of peace or normality. I would argue this period of time right after a revolution is just as impactful as the revolution itself. If a nation cannot find some sort of direction based on the goals of the revolution it just fought, it could never achieve what it had been fighting for. I think something very similar to this happened in Mexico. In the 1920's and 1930's, Mexico, with its new leaders, had the opportunity to implement the reforms that revolutionaries had been fighting for. These leaders seemed somewhat reluctant, however, to radically change the system. It wasn...