El Jardín de los Senderos que se Bifurcan

BORGES

How does the absence of the first two pages affect our understanding and appreciation of the rest of the story?
It gives it a sense of reality where it is very common to lose pages of a reading and this specific situation makes it acquire more credibility.
Personally, I also believe it leaves a lot of holes in the story but apparently not necessary for the understanding of what is going on. I think some pieces of information are left out on purpose, for example, we never know how he ended up doing what he did, why Albert city was important or “the one city”, we never know how he figures this out or many other things because it is trying to get our attention elsewhere and an easy way of getting rid of irrelevant information, which in the end also adds to the whole mystery of the story.

An explicit reference is made to the Thousand and One Nights, a recursively narrated work of literature. In what ways is Borges's story "The Garden of Forking Paths" recursive? What other recurring patterns are evident. (Clue: the idea of a labyrinth)

I believe the way in which he tells gets to the last story is itself explaining the last story. It is like in order for us to understand the labyrinth of time and what he meant by forking paths in relation to this, he needed to tell the story in that particular way. All that happens and all stories or “bifurcaciones” within the story tell us the same thing but with a different structure. All process the character goes through to get to the story of the labyrinth explains the labyrinth and something that never ends as it is a story within a story within a story that could possibly never end. One story explains the other and visceversa.


What exactly is the solution that Stephen Albert has discovered to the mystery concerning the project of the narrator's ancestor?
When the ancestor died, nobody found the labyrinth he said he would make and they found his literary work disconnected and unfinished. Arthur, after reading many times and analyzing it thoroughly, gets to understand the literary work in its own logic. He thinks the labyrinth was the book itself and not apart. He also explains why he thinks the book is a labyrinth because it can be read as multiple possibilities that all happen which is why when read from our logical point of view makes no sense at all. The piece the ancestor wrote never mentions the word “time” because it is saying time in many different ways and is like a riddle about time so he cannot mention it.

What precisely is the analogy that connects a labyrinth in space with a labyrinth in time? What kind of questions does Borges raise in the story about the nature of Time.
Just as a person can be in a labyrinth and have multiple choices in that same space, the same happens in time. By holding that time has many possibilities and ways and all of these are happening at once.

How does the story relate to hypertext? (find a definition of "hypertext")
Borges’ story can be related to hypertext because as you are reading it you need to look up certain words, books, names, events, etc in order for you to understand the story and what they are talking about but these same things you look up take you to a different thing you might you need to look up in order to understand that same thing. So, it could be an endless search when trying to understand the story. It also relates to what the story is about with the labyrinth and the endless searches and choices one can make.


List all the "authors" in the story, their relationship to each other, and how each contributes to the narrative. Describe how Borges blurs the traditional distinction between author, narrator, and characters.
Lidell Hart, the one who wrote the book where everything happens
Yu Tsun, main character of story, is being persecuted by Richard Madden who is in a way pushing him to making decisions quickly, that in the story’s sense, pushes him into one of the many “bifurcaciones” but all happen at the same time. Viktor Runeberg is the man Madden killed and in a way represented one of the multiple ways Yu Tsun could end up soon. Yu Tsun’s boss is an influence on every decision Yu Tsun takes. The kids in the train also influence which way he takes. Stephen Albert is there to explain what exactly is happening with Ts'ui Pên’s story.


What other questions does the text of the story prompt you to ask?
Regarding the story I wonder if, because they talked about multiple possibilities happening all at once, Yu Tsun killed Stephen Albert with no remorse at all because he knew it was just one of the multiple realities and in different ones he would live or he would not even know him. I also wonder if Stephen Albert knew what was going to happen and if he wouldn’t be killed but knew what was going to happen, if he would be okay with it because of the labyrinth or if he would panic and forget all about the labyrinth and try to save himself.
In general, I have thought about multiple things happening all at once or as time in a non linear way, where I can be living right now this moment but at the same time every other moment in my life. It made me question whether or not we actually do have a choice or if we are just set in a specific way thinking we have control over our lives when we really don’t because this reality is all we will ever know and the things we do are all we were ever intended to do because we are not in the other different possibilities. I also began to question whether all ways and choices in the end are just a structure but at the end get to the same point and ending.. Or if there is or is not even an ending at all.

Un señor muy viejo con unas alas enormes

Gabriel García Márquez

What are the different ideas that the people have about how to deal with the very old man?
At first Elisenda and Pelayo seem pretty decent when wanting to help the old man but soon act in a very inhumane way buy locking him up.Many people went to see him and threw rocks at the old man hoping he would move or stand up so they could get a better look, others threw food at him as if he were a circus animal in a cage. I think overall nobody treated him as they would treat a human just because they didn’t know what he was. All interactions towards him are very selfish and egocentric. They all want something from him, miracles, money, or the entertainment of the day or prove and show their wisdom by theorizing about it.


How is he treated in the end? (List all the ways) 
The town forgets him and in the house he is treated like the crabs they tried keeping out. Nobody really cares in the end but Elisenda (and probably Pelayo), she doesn’t care in the way that she has a concern for his wellbeing but for her own calm and peace. I think even though she doesn’t mention it she somehow feels responsible for his suffering and would rather not see him to get onto her saily life. I think he constantly is there as a reminder that she could change and help but never does. When he leaves she and Pelayo feel relieved.


What does the church contribute to the story and the old man’s treatment?
They immediately want to catalog him as either celestial and sublime or an animal. As if those were the only two things one can be when one is not a human. Nobody doubts what the church or padre Gonzaga have to say about it. The father gonzora writes higher church authorities for he thinks it is best for them to decide and determine the man’s nature.


Is there any evidence in the text that he is in fact an angel, or any evidence that he is not?
It depends on what an angel really is. His wings make him seem like an angel and that he comes from above but he could also just be a creature never before seen. The way angels are strictly related to religion and myths (which can be nothing but stereotypes) make it hard for one to believe he is an angel when he is described as old, weak, needing rest and overall dirty and sick. Although some miracles such as the blind man growing three new teeth or the man with leprosy growing sunflowers from his wounds are believed to be thanks to the old manwith wings.
Father Gonzaga does not think he is an angel as he “does not speak the language of God” but then again, the sublime and celestial has been mythified around the world.
Father Gonzaga also mentions soon after that it cannot be determined whether he is or he is not an angel by his wings, probably because he knows he nor nobody else could know for certain based on looking at him.


How would you compare this story with Filiberto’s experience with Chac Mool?
It is similar because it is something that does not happen everyday but is still not seen as a huge thing or at least not in the long run. It seems odd for Chac Mool to come to life and for an angel to be in Pelayo’s backyard but they try to seem to go on with their lives. Both situations affected their routines but not really the way they see things.
Both Chac Mool and the Angels have been mythified to the point where people think they know what they do, eat, look like and must be like. So when noth come in different ways and acting differently as expected people do not know how to interact or what to categorize them as.

Use Zamora and Faris' definition of magical realism as a mode that "facilitates the fusion, or coexistence, of possible worlds, spaces, systems that would be irreconcilable in other modes of fiction" and explain how you think this definition might relate to the elements of this story?
I believe that it links both worlds and the man with wings is then tried to be understood from the point of view and world the town lives in. It seems, as I mentioned before, odd for the man with wings to be there but acquires some sort of reality by how people treat him. They do see him as something weird and possibly out of this world but are not as surprised by it like one would expect them to be. After a few days he becomes something ordinary and they even treat him badly around the house and then even feel sorry for him, like they would with any animal or poor man they were to see. He also acquires reality when the doctor checks him and thinks it is so natural and normal: “Resultaban tan naturales en aquel organismo completamente humano, que no podía entender por qué no las tenían también los otros hombres.”

El Desafío

Vargas Llosa. El Desafío
S. Cruz.  Subjetividad Masculina

After reading the final section of Salvador Cruz Sierra's text titled "Subjetividad masculina", consider how Vargas Llosa's text "El desafio" can be read as a representation of this concept as it is described by Cruz Sierra.
Look for details to help: You should closely consider elements of form such as the descriptive language used, the names, the narrative structure and the characters present in the different scenes.
Post to blog.
In El Desafío a great deal of masculine dominance and stereotypes can be read throughout the story. The power and authority of men is implicit as no women are (relevantly) mentioned and is as if all conflicts were about the position each the men fight for within the rank of men (higher position than women). The ones being more “manly” are higher in this vertical sense of power.

In Masculinidades, Salvador Cruz Sierra describes what it means, specifically in latin culture, to be a man and its characteristics attributed to both genders, women and men.
Masculinity consists in a way of social dominance over women based on the sexual differences.
He expreses the hierarchy of men when he said “la masculinidad es un ordenamiento social que posibilita a ciertos sujetos ubicarse en una posición de control, autoridad y privilegios en las relaciones sociales”.
I believe this is the point where terms and certain links begin to intertwine and mix falsely. Being in this category of men comes with authority and being in control, not only over women but possibly everything else around,  because of the system we live in. This is very different but frequently confused to the idea that because one has power or control one is more of a man.
I am a man, therefore I am in control (patriarchal system)
I am in control, therefore I am a man (???) (ideology)

Men are, even though privileged in opportunities, their actions are forever tied and measured in a scale of manliness. “Masculinidad que protesta” was described by Cruz as lower class men, unemployed or working class who have lost most of their dividends, are marginalized and stigmatized.
How does this work? According to Cruz, unequal relations in the interior a group of men makes some of them excersice power over the others. So, even when not in control or complete dominance they are not deprived from their man stereotypes. This can be clearly felt in the story El Desafio, the men there do not belong to a rich or high social class or enjoy the privileges many other men do but are not extent to the fight for control.
This can be interpreted in the story when they want to fight to prove who has control over the other, who is a bigger man. As if, when fighting they are not only fighting for their life but for their masculinity.

Expressing one’s feelings and/or showing emotion has been long considered proper of a woman. Whereas, men who open up are considered femenine, less of a man and homosexuals, the worst offense a “man” could receive. In the story, there is a constant tension and we can perceive how nobody wanted to be in that situation of having a friend or being the one who has to fight “El Cojo”. They are preoccupied for their friend, and it can be fairly assumed Justo is scared of what might happen but does not back down or run away. Right before the fight he reserves and does not say anything that might make him seem vulnerable. Justo does not express his feelings or fear of having to fight “El Cojo” not even with his friends. His friends, similarly try to make him feel safe by trying to look as relaxed and IN CONTROL of their feelings and the situation as much as they could.

Violence, on the other hand, has been seen as an identity element belonging to men. It has been mainly directed towards women but also as war, delinquency, organized crime and fights.
El Desafio is all about this, the violence in relation to how powerful one is. It is mentioned how nobody wants to get in the way of “El Cojo” and even less fight him. We can assume he is a violent man and/or is known to be good at fighting and is therefore respected.

Some phrases supporting these ideas can be found in the story. Most insults or motivation given surrounds manliness.

“Agáchate, pisa firme... Ya, vaya, pórtese como un hombre…”
This is said to Justo right before fighting El Cojo.

“El Cojo es un asco de hombre.”

-¿Eres muy hombre? -gritó el Cojo.
-Más que tú -gritó Justo.

-Ya nos íbamos -dijo.
-Pensábamos que Justito había ido a la comisaría a pedir que lo cuidaran.
(Insulting him and his manliness, as a “man” does not ask for help..)

-Quiero entenderme con un hombre -grité, sin responderle. -No con este muñeco.

Amor

Clarice Lispector

The way Amor is narrated, in a somwhat horizontal experience, is through the actions and what the main character experiences that ends up shaping the whole story.
She describes everything and we soon realize how everything in the story is a drop that creates an ocean and impacts the way in which she sees the world. Animals in her story are not just objects but an interaction that has an impact on her life and how she thinks.

When seing the blind man she is at first disgusted to the point she looks at him as if she hated him. She then mentions she doesn't know how to look at someone or something that can't look back at you, like she would an animal and how that simple reaction and feeling of hers towards the man, which in this case is something not as important and something not being affected or even noticing the woman, have such a big effect on her life. When she enters the garden and begins to relax, she describes the animals and plants dynamics, she describes how they all in a way have their own rythm in just living, being true to their instincts and serving themselves. There is no doubt in what an animal ever does and she begins to be a part of the environment she is, just existing.
These series of events "awaken" her, when she decides to leave the garden she even describes as if she were ashamed of having been there so long and not being at her house where her children and husband await her. The title "love" I think is reflected in the moment she comes home to find her son and she hugs him scared of the outside. She came back because she loves him and says "No dejes que mamá te olvide" as if she were afraid of herself and what she might do if she forgot him. This is a very unromantic kind of love that weare used to seeing protrayed in films or in literature. I believe the events of that day changed the way she saw the world completely and it definetely marked a before and after in her life.

La Noche Boca Arriba

Julio Cortázar

Mariachi

Consider, how do we externalize our internal understanding of our identity on social media (remember we tend to be both sincere and aspirational (less sincere>insincere) in this medium)?

In the profile I included only Julian's basic information. I believe people don't really open up about who they really are. It is not only limited information but disrupted and deranged information. We tend to embelish our lives, our information and omit all bad or anything that could make us seem vulnerable, in this case the education. Another example is, when including the nickname "El Gallito Inglés", he is somehow complying and being part of his sexualization and "manhood" through sexual connotation that began after the fimling of Mariachi Baby Blues, film also included in his profile, even though he does not consider himself an actor and was not entirely sure of making the film before knowing the huge amount of money, success and admiration it would later have. He is overall complying with that people think of him and portraying his role in society. The profile picture is a picture of him in the Mariachi suite and the mariachi hat, not even showing his face entirely as if that were all he really is to the world although he clearly doesn't think that is all he is. When he tries going to the pscychiartist por example, the doctor thinks of him more as his favorite artist than his patient. He includes superficial like like watching "Formula 1" but does not deepen into what it all really means to him and the place it has in his life.

So, even when "real" it is unsincere.
He is not showing what he really believes, how he sees himself, he does not mention his father killing his mother, his wish and love for women with white hair, his issues with Catalina, his lack of formal education, how superficial his relationships are, what he really thinks about Leo nor his relationship with Brenda. I think we are all similar to this with our lives and social media. Giving out our social image rather than our personal one.

Chac Mool

Juan Rulfo

Who narrates the story/How is the story narrated?
Filiberto’s friend. He then starts reading Filiberto’s diary.

Who is Filiberto? What does he do? What class is he from? What might he represent?
Filiberto has recently been fired from “La secretaría”. He liked collecting indigenous statues and artifacts. Filiberto inherited his parents' house which is described as big and from the “porfiriato”. The Porfiriato was a time of great inequalities and had a huge economic and social gap, so we can assume he came from a family with money. He also says something in his diary of being in a private college and of having a promising looking future as a young student but did not reach the expectations. So now, he is not struggling with money but needs to be more careful on what he spends his money, like mentioned when buying a coffee or an original artifact, as he isn’t rich at all.

What is a Chac Mool? (internet investigation)
Chac Mool is a pre-Columbian sculpture (the picture below) that to this day has many different interpretations. It is important to contrast that this figure is mostly found in sacred contexts such as altars. One of the most predominant interpretations is that he is the God of rain but to this day it represents a figure full of mystery.



Who was the Le Plongeon referred to on pg 5? How can we interpret Fuentes’ re-telling of Le Plongeon’s act?
This is a reference to Augustus Le Pongeon, a European archeologist from the XIX century. It is being cynical in a way, of Europeans “discovering” pre columbian reliques.

Describe the Chac Mool. What is he like physically? What is his personality like?
He if something scary and dark: “The room smelled of horror, of incense and blood.”
Described as something a normal person would not look like or adopt this position but is still alive:  “There was Chac Mool, upright, smiling, ocher, with his belly flesh-colored. Two eyes paralyzed me, almost cross-eyed, very close to the triangular nose. The bottom teeth, biting the upper lip, unmoving; only the luster of the square headpiece on the abnormally voluminous head suggested life…”
Chac Mool is invasive and is used to having what he wants: “He’s taken my clothes, and he puts on the nightgowns when he starts to shed green moss. The Chac Mool is accustomed to being obeyed, always;
He is wet and cold, it is like a fish, when he doesn’t have enough water it’s as if he dies: “...a little while ago, in the darkness, I ran into him on the stairs, I felt his icy arms, the scales of his renewed skin, and I wanted to scream…” “If it doesn’t rain soon, the Chac Mool is going to change into stone again.”

Do you find any relationship between this story and Paz’ essays?
I think it talks about our roots and why we are the way we are nowadays. Both talk and describe in some way the hypocresy in our day to day life and how we perceive things.

Cuando las Mujeres Aman a los Hombres

Rosario Ferré

El Huesped

The story El Huesped can be read first off and understood superficially and maybe even categorized as fantasy or magical realism but when analyzed deeper it is evident it does not belong to either one of these genres. Magical realism uses supernatural elements and defies the rules of logic simulating some sort of miracle that shake nature and the way of life as we know it. It is set in a real world but adds certain elements to make it seem fantastic. An example of fantasy can be Harry Potter, because different to magical realism, it creates an unreal world where fantastic phenomenons are no longer seen as a miracle but just as fantasy.
This story, even with a fictional character, in this case “Él”, mentions briefly this thing lacks life so it can be confusing at first because the reader does not know if it is really happening or not. It is not Fantasy as it is set in a real world but cannot be considered magical realism either because the characters mentions the thing has no life at all and is not really there: “Guadalupe and I never called him by name; it seemed to us that by doing so the shadowy creature would acquire a certain reality”

The beings presence alters the characters routine. The narrator, Guadalupe and the kids are scared of it, but most of all, the narrator is the one most afraid of it. She is somehow responsible because the kids and Guadalupe don’t have a say in it because of the hierarchy, so it is up to her to ask her husband, who is portrayed as more powerful and higher in authority. The moment Guadaulpe and the narrator decide to kill it, tension rises because this does not only mean killing the thing but challenging the husband’s power and authority. When they kill it positions are inverted and the narrator is somehow free and finally had the last word on it.

Nos han dado la tierra. Palabras como preguntas

The story Nos han dado la Tierra by Juan Rulfo is about 4 farmers who have been given land during the distribution of land ending the revolution. The main problem of this is that they have not received good or fertile soil to be able to grow any crops, a dry land that in a way connotes emptiness and death; ““el llano no es cosa que sirva. No hay conejos, ni pájaros. No hay nada” (p. 9). This story, in a much deeper perspective subtly represents the injustice and oppression Mexican farmers went through in the early 1900s. 

“No decimos lo que pensamos. Hace ya tiempo que se nos acabaron las ganas de hablar” shows how they had barely enough energy to make it to the land and could not waste it on talking. This is most likely not exclusive to this moment in the story but describes the farmers’ lifestyles and the conditions they lived in. Throughout the story it is mentioned their firearms and horses were taken away from them, and even though they are trying to see the bright side about it they were left naked and vulnerable. Farmers had to survive rather than live and were not heard 

Palabras como preguntas witten by Yasnaya Elena talks about the relation between an indigenous woman and feminism. Yasnaya begins to explain the trouble and differences when translating different concepts into a different language. In this case, her mother tongue and spanish with the concept of “indigenous”, saying how they would never identify as “indigenous” per say, but had different words and concepts to refer to other cultures and nations. 

Then goes on to explain how feminism is also a troubling concept for indigenous women at first. They can not quite grasp the meaning or idea of feminism as they are not only being condescended for being women, but also for being indigenous. They find it hard to fight together as women as they do not identify with the women in higher classes who discriminate and condescend them for their roots and culture. 

Mexicans have had and still have a relationship with opression and discrimination (gender and indigenous wise) since its origins. It has been founded on the idea of a higher power and supremacy, built on eurocentrism and discrimination. In both texts the people in power abuse the vulnerable. In Rulfo’s text the government and the people in power are the oppressors and care little for the farmers. In the other text, Palabras como Preguntas, points out the same type of abuse but from mestizos, those most likely in power, towards indigenous people.

Canción Amarga, Gabriela Mistral

"La Mexicaneidad" Paz y Siqueiros

Paz is one of the most emblematic faces of Mexican Contemporary Literature. He is well known for being a diplomat, polititian, poet, and writer throughout the XX century.

He was intrigued by human interactions and the way history and morals make up different archetypes and the complex contemporary social structure we live in today. One of his most relevant works, El Laberinto de la Soledad, published in 1950 was an innovative antropological essay about mexican identity and ideology.

He attributes mexican history, made up of both Indigenous and Spanish culture, the main role in creating a unique Mexican culture and mind of its own..

He describes Mexicans as hermetic, sealing and distancing its inner self from the outer world in order to protect itself as a mexican's most precious thing is its intimacy. On the opposite side, the mexican perceives the one who opens up as weak and a traitor to himself and his intimacy.

José de Jesús Alfaro Siqueiros, better known as David Alfaro Siqueiros, (Mexico City; 29th December 1896 – Cuernavaca; 6th January 1974) was a paintor considered one of the big three mexican muralists as well as Diego Rivera and José Clemente Orozco. 

His murals were devoted to revolutionary and social issues, to inspire the lower classes as well as embracing and expressing what Mexico was. His colorful paintings represent figures full of intense emotions like in El Martirio de Cuauhtémoc.

El Martirio de Cuauhtémoc

David Alfaro Siqueiros.

This mural was created in the early 50s, and was dedicated to the pre-Hispanic ruler Cuauhtémoc. Siqueiros himself on the day of the inauguration mentioned: “it is a song to Cuauhtémoc and an image of the struggle that weak peoples have to sustain”. In the image you can see the torment of said ruler at the time he is tortured to reveal the great treasures of the region.

In this painting, a very clear image of what Paz described as what a mexican aspires is clear. The mexican must never give up nor beg, must not show emotions to its enemies as it is a sign of weakness. 

Cuauhtemoc is shown to be estoic, unmoved, undisturbed, to an external impression or stimulus that normally produces disturbance, triggers an emotion or induces a certain action, in this case, torture.

Next to Cuauhtémoc lies another man who seems to cry and beg God, which contrasts Cuauhtémoc's attitude looked up upon by mexicans and seen as heroic opposite to the man showing emotion.

Modernismo y la Muerte de la Emperatriz de la China

Modernism in Latin American literature was a poetic literary movement developed between the 19th and 20th centuries (1880-1920). The movement was characterized by creative rebellion as well as a cosmopolitan culturalism. It was a milestone in Hispanic literature as it brought the embracement and acceptance of one’s culture and roots influencing and even setting the tone for European literature. The concept and discourse at this time is important, as modernism professes a powerful disagreement with the bourgeois culture prevailing at the time and tries to deviate the reader's attention from the outside world completely to immerse it into the story it tells. La Muerte de la Emperatriz de la China by Rubén Darío belongs to Modernismo and is one of the first texts It tells the story of a deeply in love couple living happily until one day, the man receives a gift, beautiful oriental statue, the empress of China. From this moment on, the veneration and love that the artist once felt for his beloved, now goes to the beautiful statue. The woman turns jealous but through out the story this attitude is described in a way as endearing, this could be traced to latin american culture and the way some social interactions are perceived
When reguiding his attention to the statue, the concept of “art for art” is manifested in the story, because the story contrasts the love for the real woman with the artist's love for the formal perfection of art. In fact, an unreal world is described, in which everything seems to be perfect and wonderful and true beauty is achieved only through art. At the same time in the story we can find a strong influence of the oriental and the escapism, emblematic feature of modernism, the protagonist when placed in front of the statue wants to escape and thus loses the grip on reality.

Our America

José Martí

In his text Our America, José Martí writes on Latin America and the relationship with its colonizers. He is clearly against colonization and the “exotic” man (colonizer), as he saw them of different nature and unlike natural men who were “good”. He describes colonizers as condescending with no reason to be so at all with natives. 

He describes  latin americans who seeked to be like their colonizers as traitors its people shpuld get rid of and as weak, comparing them to seven month old babies.  They are the opposite of what he thinks should be pursued, cosmopolitanism, and instead are close minded and think only of what closely surrounds them.

As a pro cosmopolitanism he insists on thinking bigger and appreciating all the different cultures but emphasizes on the importance of having countries run by its people who understand and know the country, its people, its resources, etc. Instead of having a government copied off a country they long to be. 

“La unidad del Espíritu”. He believed Latin America should be proud, stand tall and unite, not in government or states but in spirit and rise together. 

The context and discourse at this time is as important and relevant as José Martí was one of the independent movement initiators and later an inspiration for Cuba’s revolution.

I find this text very interesting because even though it was written more than 100 years ago ti still applies to what we live day to day. There will always be politicians and governors seeking their own good and not thinking about the country or the way it should be particularly run. There are always people trying to look or be European because somehow this way of thinking that they are superior or better is immersed in our society and has not gone away. 

Despite them being part of our history and us being a mixture of both, we are not Europeans and I couldn’t agree more with Martí. As latins we are all a mix of different races and cultures and it should be something to be accepted, embraced, be proud of and worked with rather than rejected.

Open Veins of Latin America

Before the conquest, natives did not have many of the inventions that conquerors brought with them such as iron, plow, glass, gun powder or the wheel. It is believed the unequal development of both sides can explain the ease with which native civilizations succumbed. Natives had never seen anything like it before. Horses were seen as mythical creatures, and conquerors as gods with their pale skin and sharp tools.

“El desnivel de desarrollo de ambos mundos explica en gran medida la relativa facilidad con que sucumbieron las civilizaciones nativas.” Pg.33

Diseases are also considered to be one of the conqueror’s most powerful weapons without them even realizing it: Native’s bodies and immune systems were not adapted to the kind of diseases conqueror's carried with them leaving natives dead or unable to fight back. 

“Las bacterias y los virus fueron los aliados más eficaces. Los europeos traían consigo, como plagas bíblicas, la viruela y el tétanos, varias enfermedades pulmonares, intestinales y venéreas, el tracoma, el tifus, la lepra, la fiebre amarilla, las caries que pudrían las bocas” Pg. 35

Conqueors also took advantage of issues and grudges held against the cultures: Hernan Cortes alliance with the Tlaxcalans to vanish the Aztecs. Pg. 34

It was an era of invention. Discoveries and inventions were made each year thanks to the enlightenment so the discovery of America was just one more to be added to the list of things they discovered and invented that always benefited them in their growth, economy or knowledge. It was not the first time nor the last time that they knew about something and took advantage and/or exploited resources or people.


For Galeano, it is a win-lose situation, where he explains that world powers have triumphed because we have lost. When conquerors came, they took all the wealth and valuable resources they could through force and conquest, brainwashing natives through religion and/or fear to submit and obey. Whereas, nowadays Latin America continues to serve the countries they used to through diplomacy and economy.

Pasaron los siglos y América Latina perfeccionó sus funciones. Éste ya no es el reino de las maravillas donde la realidad derrotaba a la fábula y la imaginación era humillada por los trofeos de la conquista, los yacimientos de oro y las montañas de plata. Pero la región sigue trabajando de sirvienta. Continúa existiendo al servicio de las necesidades ajenas, como fuente y reserva del petróleo y el hierro, el cobre y la carne, las frutas y el café, las materias primas y los alimentos con destino a los países ricos que ganan, consumiéndolos, mucho más de lo que América Latina gana produciéndolos. 

Cooking Lesson

1. Women know how to cook

"How long will it take to be done? Well, that shouldn't worry me too much because it has to be put on the grill at the last minute. It takes very little time, according to the cookbook. How long is little? Fifteen minutes? Ten? Five? Naturally the text doesn't specify. It presupposes an intuition which, according to my sex, I'm supposed to possess but I don't, a sense I was born without that would allow me to gauge the precise minute the meat is done." Pag. 4

2. Women satisfy men sexually

 But I, self-sacrificing little Mexican wife, born like a dove to the nest, smiled like Cuauhtemoc under torture on the rack when he said, "My bed is not made of roses," and fell silent. Face up, I bore not only my own weight but also his on top of me. The classic position for making love. And I moaned, from the tearing and the pleasure. The classic moan. Myths, myths. Pag. 3

3. Women do not talk other than to say yes 

"Si asumo la otra actitud, si soy el caso típico, la femineidad que solicita indulgencia para sus errores, la balanza se inclinara a favor de mi antagonista y yo participaré en la competencia con un hándicap que, aparentemente, me destina a la derrota y que, en el fondo, me garantiza el triunfo por la sinuosa vía que recorrieron mis antepasadas, las humildes, las que no abrían los labios sino para asentir, y lograron la obediencia ajena hasta al más irracional de sus caprichos. La receta, pues, es vieja y su eficacia está comprobada. Si todavía lo dudo me basta preguntar a la más próxima de mis vecinas. Ella confirmará mi certidumbre." Pag. 6

4. Women are incomplete without men

“So then, I accept, as we head toward the bar (my peeling shoulder feels like it's on fire) that it's true that in my contact or collision with him I've undergone a profound metamorphosis. I didn't know and now I know; I didn't fed and now I do feel; I wasn't and now I am. “ Pag. 4

From Discourse to Power

Foucoult views discourse as the production of knowledge through language. He argues that nothing would make sense or mean anything if what is being said or done does not belong to that discourse of that particular time and place. It is a representation of knowledge, everything being said and done regarding a topic. So, anyone who manipulates the discourse can rule how we behave and view the world, deciding what is socially acceptable and what’s not. When the one in power has the knowledge of the truth it can be changed and have everyone believing it is true, eventually making it become true.

Foucoult believed power, rather than being a straight line, was a flowing chan. There is not a single “ruler” and the ones he rules over but we have all been and are opressors and oppressed. Despite us having a certain role, what produces the knowledge according to Foucault was the discourse, not the subject executing the action or social practice and was also not necessary for there to be one to operate.

What is the relationship of discourse to power?

What new conception of power does Foucault give us?

Why does Foucault’s work impact the traditional conception of the subject?