Filed under: The Crossing
Our passage was found on page 158. We classified its themes under “God” and “Meaning of life”.
(1) ”What the priest saw at last was that the lesson of a life can never be its own. Only the witness has power to take its measure. It is lived for the other only…There is another who will hear what you never spoke…”
Lessons through others
From this we concluded that McCarthy is telling us that we can learn from others, but certain deeper lessons can only be learned by observation of others and their experiences. The priest finally learned from the other that which he could not learn or see clearly on his own. Because of this he says that the witness is able to draw upon the lesson of the other and learn from it. “There is another who will hear what you never spoke” is referring to the lesson/actions of the other. Although never directly spoken, one is still able to take some sort of lesson or idea away from the experience of the other and utilize it as a learning tool. Billy learned from the wolf and even from the journey itself although there was no verbal communication. This is a very literal example but can also be linked to this quote.
(2) “To God every man is a heretic. The heretic’s first act is to name his brother. So that he may step free of him…”
Rejection of nature/God’s world
We applied the idea of the heretic (which can be defined as a misbeliever) to man in general in the novel. Man thinks himself apart from God. He names God and man to distinguish himself. He separates himself from the natural order/old order which is mentioned when talking about the wolves earlier in Part I. By trying to tame the wilderness and land and everything and by naming it he is rejecting it and setting himself apart. So not only did we see it in a religious light but also as a metaphor for man and his desire to spread out and modernize and domesticate the world. As if the world God created was not good enough, his desire to take control of it and diminish the old order/nature aspect of can be viewed as him rejecting it.
(3) “Stones themselves are made of air…”
Spirit and Body
We took this little portion and connected it with a couple of other quotes from Part I. The first being Texan joke (39) ending in “You aint got nothin left but buckles and boots.” The second being (45) “Lo que se tiene en la trampa no es mas que dientes y forro.” The third being (46) “The wolf is like the copo de nieve.” The page 39 and 45 quotes we related to each other and determined they were trying to tell us that everything on the earth, each being, has 2 parts: a spirit and a physical body. And the spirit is the part that knows the world. We compared the page 46 “copo de nieve” quote with the “stones themselves are made of air” mentioning that a snowflake will disappear once held and air cannot even be held, it is invisible and unable to own, just as the wolf. Both are unable to capture as is the spirit. But although one cannot capture it that does not mean it does not exist. Then we linked the religious segment on page 158 (“In the end we shall all of us be only what we have made of God. For nothing is real save his grace.”) with the spirit idea, deciding that the priest is telling us that God is related to our spirit and without him in us we are just a void, an empty body.
As a side note, there is a program for graduating students to go to various parts of Spain and be a “North American Language and Culture Assistant”. I am not sure about all of the information but the deadline is May 11th. What I do know is that it is for 8 months, you are given a monthly salary which is about 800 dollars US, and you only teach 12 hours per week. It would be a good opportunity if any of you want to check it out. Here are the links.
http://span4313.blogspot.com/2007/02/dear-friends-education-office-of.html
http://www.mec.es/sgci/usa/en/programs/us_assistants/default.shtml
Filed under: The Crossing
…The first page of The Crossing is a mythical beginning about the demarcation and definition of the U.S. in a space that is, by definition, multicultural… This statement fits the first paragraph very well, noting that is is mythical (defined as based on or told of in traditional stories; lacking factual basis or historical validity). It is told by the narrator but we can obviously see the multiculturality in it. The young county is named in Spanish (Hidalgo) and it is mentioned that they “named him features of the landscape and birds and animals in both spanish and english” when referring to the boy. The inclusion of both languages which is something common in this border area (NM) definitely is a hint at the multiculturality. Also, the relationship with nature noted in the quote above is something that lets us know that some of the culture from Mexico is included in the territory which happens to be in the U.S.
The Mexicans are portrayed as a simple group of people place a special importance on their traditions and culture. The elders in the book have a somewhat negative view of them in certain passages (“Aint no guarantee that a one of em can read.” 51) and (“She come up from Mexico.” “I dont doubt it. Ever other damn thing does.” 60). This is odd because the land had fairly recently switched hands from Mexico to the U.S. and that someone would think that the Mexicans are already encroaching on their land seems kind of ridiculous. As far as when Mexicans appear with Billy on his way to Mexico, they are very pleasant with him, sharing food, helping tend to the wound of the wolf, among other things. When he gets further into Mexico and is robbed of his wolf the portrayl of them goes sour, as they are seen as taking advantage of him until finally he lets them know he was serious by killing the wolf. I think the representation is fairly even meaning that it does not stereotpye or generalize them. Various situations show various aspects of the Mexicans. Especially when taken side by side with the portrayls of the people from the United States, who are also not always represented as superior.
Filed under: Uncategorized
When I read The Marlboro Man the first time I really focused on the paragraph that mentioned him as “Very GQ”. Immediately, like Monica, I thought of the idea of what is now metrosexuality. If that is not the correct word, what I am trying to say is a male that is “in touch” with things often related to females such as style, a certain level of hygiene, and a type of behavior that may be considered unmanly or at least neutral.
So the Marlboro Man, who is supposed to be THE symbol of masculinity and rugged cowboyishness and all of that is here dressed up like a doll and then later rumored to be prancing around naked. Being pretty and dressing up is usually left to girls and the guys, especially this one, are supposed not care about their appearance.
The naked part made me wonder also, since the girl had mentioned that he was at the bar, that maybe he could not hold his liquor and was stripping and actin-a-fool because of that. Holding your liquor is another type of “proving your manhood” and, if this was how Cisneros intended it, would also be emasculating him.
Filed under: Uncategorized
I would argue that this movie was very racist. It was probably a product of prevalent attitudes at the time but today we can see how the two adversaries were depicted in such different fashions. Even by calling the Anglo soldiers “martyrs” in the title is a little over-the-top. The Mexicans are portrayed as drunkards in the street, harassing the Anglo women and disrespecting the men by ganging up on them. Their general is portrayed as someone who ran the show from far away, which may be partially true, while almost all Anglo heroes are present and fighting bravely. The placards in the movie definitely boosted the racistness (if that is a word) of this movie, repeatedly calling the Mexicans the “more violent” and assuming that Santa Anna took place in “shameful orgies” with captured women. This second placard would obviously incite rage to all the viewers of the time although it is very likely made up. The style of dress of the Mexican soldiers is exactly the same which permits the viewers to lump them into a group of bumbling idiot soldiers who are able to defeat the other through numbers (as mentioned in the Harmony and Conflict article). On the other hand, the Anglo soldiers were dressed in differing fashions so they weren’t just seen as a flock of soldiers, they were individuals. And with the idea of individuals, we are able to connect on a closer level with the characters.
As far as the role of women in the movie, I would say that it is to create a link with the viewer just as the individualism showed through their clothing was. No Mexican women were shown, and when Anglo women were in the presence of Mexcian soldiers they were being harassed and disrespected. The goal was to try to create an image of family, community, respect for women by the Anglos and a sense of deviantness in the Mexicans who lacked a female counterpart in the movie. Without a counterpart, they were seen as people lacking the ability to love. They also did not depict any Mexican children but did show Mexican soldiers throwing an Anglo baby. It was all done hoping to alienate the Mexican as a person who lacks a sense of responsibility, loyalty, and love to family, and on the other hand, glorify the Anglos who defended their women and children throughout the movie. We are supposed to feel compassionate toward the Anglo family and relate to them, feeling bad that they have to endure the battles as a group while the Mexicans do not share that task.
Filed under: Uncategorized
The article basically breaks down three scenarios in which our formation of intercultural images can be influenced. The first would be “accurate, balanced, well-contextualized” information coming from both schools and the mass media. The second would exhibit a little shift in the balance of data, which may be left out or distorted, but as noted by the author, this scenario could at least lead to critical thinking excercises where students could examine different accounts and make up their mind on their own. The final scenario is one in which students receive ”erroneous and distorted images” from both parties, which reaffirm each other and assist in “fostering intercultural misconceptions.”
Even before reading this article it seemed obvious to me that the first scenario was not something that I experencied during earlier schooling years. After various history classes in college I was left questioning the validity of certain things I learned in my 7th grade class of Texas History. So many topics popped up that seemed new to me and the manner in which the material was presented was totally different. In 7th grade, the main focus of my class was the Alamo and Stephen F. Austin and his settlers moving peacefully into the southern territory. I barely recall anything else about the US-Mexican War except that Santa Anna was a very evil man. By focusing on the tragedy of the Alamo, an US vs THEM idea was planted into my mind. And by painting Stephen F. Austin’s journey as one by which they abided the conditions stated before entering made the Americans seem upright and honest. I don’t know if this was influenced by the teacher’s opinions, the book, or whatever, it was too long ago to remember. But I didn’t question any of it when I was 13 or however old I was. I just checked my brother’s history book from TCC and one page out of five hundred talks about the US-Mexican War. It doesn’t seem like very much coverage to explain how we acquired so much territory.
As far as ways specified in the article, it is noted that Latin America and Mexico are usually only brought up when they have something to do with the United States. Books caricatured Mexicans by portraying them in traditional clothing or representing them as simple Indians. Certain aspects are stressed while ignoring others. These are even if there is even a section covering the countries. The lack of coverage for them is also a problem noted by surveys.
One thing that I have noticed first-hand is something mentioned in the article about the Spanish conquistadors. They are portrayed as violent and overpowering, meanwhile, hundreds of years later the atrocities committed toward the Native Americans by the New Americans are kind of pushed aside. Now Native Americans are extremely marginalized. They have super-high high school dropout and alcholism rates, and are barely seen off of reservations. Do you ever see any Native Americans in the city? Their lives, land, race has been destroyed and they are given some breaks from the government that others don’t get, but they don’t make up for anything.
Films are described as “a special opportunity for Anglos to demonstrate their superiority over Mexicans.” Obviously from The Martyrs of the Alamo we can see how the Anglos were portrayed as morally superior, but fell at the hands of a “mass of ineffective fighters, able to triumph only through vast superiority of numbers…”
It is impossible to tell history in an unbiased way because there is no being who is capable of describing events without having previous ties or opinions that may influence the way he/she does so. But the article makes a good point by mentioning certain faults of the mass media and education systems. Throwing money into the mix of opinions corrupts everything that much more. A better way to approach history would be to take texts from different people, different nations, different professions, as varied as possible, and compare them, hopefully finding some type of general consensus, thus making the story as unbiased as possible.
Filed under: El periquillo sarniento
I am loving this book. I’m lovin’ it (www.mcdonalds.com). So far all of the social commentary and antics of el Periquillo have made this one of the easiest reads of my college career. What I like most is the portrayl of religion and the views of certain characters towards religion.
La vida de fraile trae sus incomodidades inaguantables, como el estudio, la asistencia de comunidad, la observación de las reglas…En cambio de esas molestias, tiene el estado de sus ventajas considerables, como el honor de la religión que se extiende por todos sus individuos, aunque sean legos;…y sobre todo, hijo, el afianzar la torta para siempre. (el ínclito Martín Pelayo)
El afianzar la torta para siempre….ahahahahahahah…it just has such a holy ring to it. And then later Periquillo is talking with the Father of the church to gain his acceptance and he just lies through his teeth:
Y ’sí, Padre’, ’sí, Padre’, respondí a setenta “sabes” que me preguntó.
When he goes home and his mom gets all excited the father’s response to her is great:
…las familias que en realidad son nobles, como la tuya, no aspiran a parecerlo con el empeño de tener un hijo religioso, ni hacen vanidad de ello cuando lo tienen. La nobleza verdadera consiste en la virtud. (el papá del Periquillo)
So these various characters treat religion as the means to an end. The kids (Pelayo and Periquillo) talk about utilizing religion as a way to glide through life and make an easy living while having to deal with minor nuicances such as helping others. The mom views her son’s future in the religious realm as a way to improve the status of their family and for her own vanity. The father is the voice of reason here.
The idea of vanity and how one is seen by others is also demonstrated in the hilarious passage after Periquillo graduates and he just goes off with variations of the word bachiller (bachilleramiento, bachillerearon, bachillereadas, bachillería). He really finishes his schooling with very little to show for it but his mom is overjoyed because he has gotten “an education”.
Keeping up appearances is a theme that always seems to be present. And as far as I have seen, religion has a big part to do with keeping them up. Dressing up for church and blah blah blah…it is disgusting. Angering. You could probably tell someone this book was written yesterday and due to the fact that so much of its content still occurs today, it would be believable.
It is funny just to imagine the people reading this or having it read to them at the time it was brand new. The mockery of religion is something that will always be timeless.
Filed under: La relación
El semestre pasado tuve una clase llamada “la literatura chicana” con Dr. Ruiz-Pérez. Tuvimos que leer una variedad de textos y la primera era dos capítulos de La relación de CdV. El profe nos había dicho que este texto podría ser clasificado dentro de la literatura chicana por dos razones: 1) la aculturación que tiene lugar y 2) el tema del viaje y la búsqueda que es presente durante su relación.
Estas ideas no eran muy claras para mí. Ya, después de leer el artículo de Juan Bruce-Novoa, entiendo lo que el maestro nos explicó. JBN dice que al reintegrarse en la sociedad española, CdV no está totalmente aceptado como uno de los españoles. Ya no es un español ni un indígena. Pero CdV funciona como una llave que abre la puerta entre lo indígena y lo española.
Aquí vemos cómo CdV utiliza todos sus recursos cuando es necesario. JBN menciona que CdV falló en su viaje en el sentido que no trajo consigo riquezas del nuevo mundo a su país natal. Pero lo gracioso es que CdV reconoce que tiene algo importante: información. Y aprovecha de lo que tiene. His resourcefulness is very admirable. Él se acultura a todo. La tierra y las tribus distintas del nuevo mundo y su situación desafortunada. Me parece que he does what he has to do.
En cuanto al tema del viaje, CdV tiene dos. Primero, él hace su peregrinación aquí al nuevo mundo en busca de riquezas. Después de un tiempo, se tropieza con tantos problemas que ya se olvida de las riquezas y tiene que buscar una manera en la que pueda sobrevivir. Podemos decir, como algunos ya han dicho, que CdV viene por el “American Dream”.
En Peregrinos de Aztlán, escrito por Miguel Méndez, casi la misma cosa pasa a dos mexicanos que vienen a los Estados Unidos en busca de una vida mejor. Empiezan con ganas de hacerse ricos y blah blah blah y casi se mueren durante el viaje. Su enfoque cambia de vivir como reyes a vivir como puedan.
También en la película El norte, un hermano y una hermana ahorran dinero, salen de su país (Guatemala), contratan a un coyote para cruzar la frontera entre los EU y México, y llegan a esta “tierra prometida”. Todo esto porque habían visto algunas fotos y cosas así en algunas viejas revistas americanas que mostraban la calidad de la vida en los EU. Así que llegan aquí, y tienen que matarse para sobrevivir.
En estos tres casos, (CdV, Peregrinos, y El Norte), el ”American Dream” es más como una ilusión. Lo que tienen en común es que los personajes vienen con un concepto erróneo de cómo será la tierra prometida/nueva, y con las dificultidades que se encuentran, tienen que cambiar de “superarse mode” to “stay alive mode”.
Filed under: La relación
Hay un apartado que me llama la atención que aparece en la página 112 del texto de Cabeza de Vaca.
Throughout the land there are many and very beautiful grazing lands and good pastures for cattle, and it seems to me that it would be very productive land if it were worked and inhabited by the men of reason.
Primero, CdV utiliza la frase “gente de razón”. Ésta significaría que él pensaba que las personas indígenas eran sin razón. Se me hace un poquito raro esto porque ¿por qué tendrían que ser cristianos para cosechar esta tierra? El autor nos dice que la frase “gente de razón” significaba “persona cristiana” en esta época pero me parece que tiene una connotación negativa también…como si estos indígenas no hubieran podido lograr cosechar esta región por no ser de la religión cristiana.
En realidad me quedo un poco confundido porque es obvio al leer las páginas anteriores que CdV reconoce la inteligencia y la naturaleza adaptativa de los habitantes. ¿Por qué diría esto? ¿Para que el rey lo permitiera regresar y cultivar las tierras del nuevo mundo? No sé…jaja…
Pero lo que me llama la atención aun más, es la sugerencia de esta frase escrita por CdV. ¿Sería ésta la misma razón por la cual el territorio de Tejas y los que rodean ello hayan sido despojados de otro grupo indígena unos siglos más tarde? Me parece que sí. El pensamiento de CdV en esta parte es muy capitalista.
La tierra que puede abundar de cosechas queda virgen. Y esto es lo que vieron algunas figuras norteamericanas en el siglo XIX cuando se dieron cuenta de la mina de oro que es la parte sudoeste de lo que hoy día llamamos los Estados Unidos. Los mexicanos habían vivido en estas zonas con su agricultura de subsistencia después de que fueron conquistados por los españoles y de repente, con Manifest Destiny y toda esta idea expansionista, la mentalidad capitalista llegó. Si ellos no van a utilizar esta tierra por si sirve de algo, vamos a robársela. Pero no sería un robo porque ellos son tan mensos y no reconocen el valor de la tierra, que ellos no la merecen. De lo que he leído adivinaría que así pensaban ellos.
Así que esta parte del texto me fascinó…tengo más que escribir pero pienso ver Dot the I ahora…
Filed under: Uncategorized
Ok this is my first blog ever. I am 21 and have a twin brother who is a photographer. I am a Spanish student at UTA who will graduate this summer. What I really want to do is move to a Spanish-speaking country to improve my skills and enjoy the culture. I want to go to somewhere in Latin America because of the dollar/peso/other conversion but my dad is opting for Spain because he thinks it is safer. I cannot afford to convert to Euros…!
