The Crossing v. The Bible

So as the crossing is coming to an end, I still find myself less than fascinated with it. I think that maybe I am a "airport reader". I need action and adventure, not ten page descriptions that could easily be summed up in a paragraph. However, I do see the big excitement in the "literary world" about this text. (A strange world that is, one that I certainly do not belong to!)

As far as the journey that is written about in the text. I find the whole novel to be like The Bible in its life messages. I know now that some of you reading this are thinking,"Did she really go there?" And yes, I did. I know that this subject all together can be a touchy one, but as I am reading this novel, I can not help but to compare the two. The Bible, some might argue, is a book of morals and journeys. It tells the story of a man, I believe to be the son of god, and his journey and hardships through the land and world at that time. The Bible gives the reader an understanding about the meaning of life and the do's and don'ts in society.

Some critics believe that The Bible, is solely a book of morals and is minimally factual. Whether that statement is true or false, is ones personal opinion. However, one cannot deny that The Bible does teach morals. In The Crossing, the author uses the passing of characters and their interactions to teach young children the ways of the world, the meaning of life. In some ways, it documents a journey, and the consequences of decisions. Much like The Bible, this novel uses conversations and paths crossing with characters to teach these lessons. In class on Thursday, we chose philosophical passages that had certain "lessons" and interpretations. I found it interesting how many of them referred to god and the journey of life. Perhaps this would have been something to write a final paper about. Perhaps not! All the same... I'm glad I sat through the torture of reading this novel. I am proud that I finished this one.

GOD AND JOURNEY

P. 230 (Last Paragraph at the End of The Page)

In interpreting this, my partner and I believe that the Premadonna is talking about a higher power. We viewed this whole passage to be talking about some "predetermined destiny". A road or journey that might have some higher direction or meaning that one cannot understand. We thought that this whole passage referenced to the meaning of life and ones travels. The control that the world has over its passengers.

Wolf v. Cow

The wolf, as a symbol in “The Crossing”, in my interpretation, is that of an animal that is ruthless in its pursuit and smart in its existence. I was intrigued when reading about the wolf’s sporadic yet somehow perfectly orchestrated way of traveling about the area. At times I felt like the wolf was smarter than those hunting “her”.

In the text it refers to the way the wolf wonders about in search of food and survival in a way that is beautiful and can almost be seen as humanistic- if that’s a word. I was overwhelmed by compassion by the part of the story talking about the wolfs persistence to stay with her fellow kind. Not wanting to desert her kind under any circumstance. Only after being lashed by one of her own did she turn and leave. The wolf’s main anger with the cows is their laziness their ignorance. The text reads, “The wolves in that country had been killing cattle for a long time but the ignorance of the animals was a puzzle to them” (25). The text goes on to talk about the almost seeming revenge or vendetta the wolves have for cattle. In my opinion this “violation of an old order” is the cow’s inability to fight for their lives, to be strong in their existence. As if the laziness of this species infuriates the being of the wolf. I believe in their killing this symbol of weakness and laziness they are taking some revenge for the struggle they go through as a species. And I could be way off here, but it’s a beauty that revolves in the circle of life. Revenge, jealousy, and the need to settle the score even when the one being penalized has no direct control of the perpetrators situation.

In my opinion that’s the beauty of the animalistic way. I will conclude with this beautiful explanation “But which cannot be held never be held and is no flower but is swift and a huntress and the wind itself is in terror of it and the world cannot lose it” (127).

An Unlikely Friendship

Within this overly long winded writing, in the first part of the novel, we embark on a journey. What the reader does not expect is to read roughly 100 pages about this “wolf hunt” which ends up being almost non-existent. I found it slightly moving to see the bond that Billy forms for the wolf.

I think the challenge the wolf brings to its huntress allows for a respect to be born. I also believe that the freedom to roam, discover, and risk lends to creating a bond between Billy and the wolf. His ability to provide for her and care for her well being make him form an attachment, give him a purpose. I believe that the bond began after trapping her, when he viewed her in her most vulnerable state, not necessarily as a killer, but something in need of compassion and care. “He talked to her a long time and as the boy tending the wolf could not understand what it was he said he said what was in his heart” (105).

Then the text goes on to explain perhaps what forms the strongest bond between the wolf and Billy and it reads, “She watched him with her yellow eyes and in them was no despair but only that same reckonless deep of loneliness that cored the world to its heart" (105). In my opinion that sentence explains it all.

To Suffer for Love Gives Women Strength

The short story The Woman Hollering Creek was the first in the book to convince me of the novel portraying women as strong, steadfast, brave creatures. Prior to reading the story I was skeptical, and am still overall. However this story was beautiful in that it depicted tragedies in life and a woman's ultimate overcoming of abuse, neglect, judgement, and fear.

One sentence that in my opinion captured a large theme in the novel reads, "Because to suffer for love is good. The pain all sweet somehow. In the end" (45). Many of the short stories in this novel show love as being paid for by pain. It is never easy or beautiful in this novel. Love is often distorted, neglected, abused much like the female characters throughout the novel. All the women suffer greatly, be it because of abuse or because of a man who loves other women. I also relate that quote to the tragic love story in Never Marry a Mexican. I find that the women in these stories are strong in their attempts to suffer through love, instead of changing their own fate. Does this ultimately make them weak? I'm not sure.

In The Woman Hollering Creek, Cleofilas is not only strong in that she willingly suffers in love, but that she ultimately does change her fate. She leaves. She goes back to her father, even though she knows the ramifications of crossing Hollering Creek in the opposite direction. This to me was the first time I saw a woman not as a victim, but as the decider of her own fate and destiny. I found this story to be heart wrenching and undeniably tragic, but one of a journey to become a strong Mexican Woman.

Strong or Weak?

After reading and discussing the first two passages assigned in Hollering Creek... by Cisneros, I found myself obsessing over the weakness of self-esteem and worth shown in both stories. While I cannot argue that the women represented in both stories were not strong in some ways, I also cannot deny their inability to demand more and expect more from their relationships and life.

In both readings, they women are illegitimate lovers who in some ways seem content with watching the ones they love, care deeply for others. Both have given up power over their own destinies and in some ways have settled for a fate of being from a certain social class or economic situation. These women are not confident in their abilities as women, instead they are prisoners to their situation and in some respects the men who only love them "in the dark". I see this as a reoccurring theme in Cisneros works. Women and restrictions based on social scaffolding.

One women, a poor farmers daughter is only "worth" being an illegitimate lover to a prestigious man, the other in the same predicament because of her race. While reading I found myself wondering why these women settle for being second, third, or even tenth? They become obsessed with their lack of title and respect, yet their obsession is what mentally empowers them. In my opinion, this obsession controls them and in some ways inhibits them from full living or experiences. I feel like the women in these stories are sort of ghost-like. Living a life that doest really exist, only in the dark in the privacy of their homes. Its a sad, horrible existence. I think another large theme in Cisneros writings concerns women as victims to men and predicament.

Finally, I have enjoyed reading Cisneros work up to this point. I remember reading The House on Mango Street some time ago, and seriously enjoyed it. I am seriously considering further research into these writings.

Beauty by Camera Angle

When thinking about Eisenstein's film, one scene in particular continues to play in my mind. The scene that I am referring to, takes place at the end of the film. There is a woman walking down a long set of stairs. The action in the scene is not what interest me. Its the way the scene was shot.

The camera view in the scene is one that was taken from above. Not a few feet, but like 20 feet above. The way it is shot makes the woman look very small, very fragile. To me the way that Eisenstein's films were shot is what made them a beautiful portrayal of Mexican actuality. I found myself watching an ordinary woman and sympathizing with how small she is in a "big world". I think that was the purpose of shooting this scene in this manner. As to show how small individuals really are in the general scheme of things. But in Mexican life these small almost unimportant people are seemingly in a world of fusion of past and present created by them.

Anyway, Eisenstein's way of causing the viewer too look at an ordinary situation in a different light makes the film beautiful, dare I even say I work of art.

Lost in Good Writting

(Mexican Revolution Refugees Fort Bliss, Texas 1914)

At first in my reading of “The Underdogs”, I found myself confused and easily distracted. Almost immediately, I have found this reading to be one of the hardest to follow. Not because it requires some sort of high intellectual engagement, rather because it fails to entertain. As sad as it is, I always feel the need to sympathize with a character or theme. I enjoy becoming engaged in a story. I think that the way this story is written, makes this almost impossible. When reading this, I have now had to approach it like a passage in a legal text. I consider the writing to be presumably unbiased, yet very cold in its approach. Azulas ability to almost “de-humanize” these experiences intrigues me. I find myself reading about war, rape, molestation, and discrimination as if they are normal parts of life. The way the author presents these horrific things is genius in my opinion.

Azulas description of events tends to have a dulling affect on me. As I read, I find myself studying the characters and accepting the criminal acts occurring as secondary to the greater picture. To me this is genius, perhaps because it allows me to really grasp how life was in Mexico during the Revolution. From reading, I have come to the conclusion that the people living in Mexico at this time were used to these high levels of crime. I think that during the Revolution, Mexico was not a civilized country. In fact, the way the novel reads, Mexico was a place of utter chaos. I think Azulas approach at de-humanizing the experience makes it “real” for the reader. I for one find myself just looking past these things as normal while I am reading. To me this is what makes his writing exquisite and intriguing.

Until we had discussed many of these crimes in class, I had not paid much attention to them. I found it interesting that I never noticed the horrible treatment of Camila by Cervantes. I also never really paid notice to the looting that was taking place. I think I found myself excusing these actions as just part of the war, “The Revolution”. So far this book has caught my attention not because of its ability to entertain, but its ability to hypnotize its readers into the situation by rare mental omission. This leads me to question whether I am the only person who has experienced “The Underdogs” like this, or if it could be a brilliant effect of Azuela’s skillful writing technique?

Click for more Mexican Revolution Images

Breeding Ignorance "Harmony and Conflict..."

I found the “Harmony and Conflict…” reading to be the most interesting of the semester. I recently finished writing my personal statement for law school and being the daughter of Spanish immigrants, this is one of the main topics within my statement. Sadly, I believe that the text books read in schools and movies shown do have a huge affect on people’s perspectives of other nationalities and countries. I don’t think that this is unique to American student’s perceptions of South America and Mexico, rather to other countries in general.

In the United States, education through text books is the main source for learning and gaining cultural understanding of other places and people. In the U.S., not much time is spent exploring other nations unless something they did is directly related to American history. After meeting some professional Canadian rugby players in New York last semester, I found it astonishing how little I knew about Canada versus how much American and World History they knew. We would ask the Canadians questions about U.S. History and they knew so much. I sadly didn’t even know how many provinces or states there were in Canada. This is a tragedy being that I am a senior in college and there is so much about the world in which I have never studied. I think that text books in public schools are cheating the American youth by the omission of information. We as an American people should be more culturally well rounded from a young age.

(Canadian friends in New York)

Next, I believe that text books and movies by the way they depict what little information they do give us, paints a controlled picture. Often, Mexico and South America are shown to be places of poverty, crime, and ignorance. Most movies and books portray Mexico as being inferior to the U.S. We study about immigrants and their history of betrayal to the U.S., but never of their importance to this country. For instance, it is never highlighted in films that much of the U.S. was actually taken from Mexico with actual Mexican people living in it. It is also not highlighted that Mexico allowed Anglo settlers the opportunity into their country to be later betrayed. In my own personal experiences, I was shown the the Anglos were only taking what was theirs. I reality it was not.

Finally, mass media plays a huge role in creating unfair perceptions of Mexico and South America. The coverage of uproar and chaos in these countries is covered on the news frequently. Rarely is there coverage about positive things within other nations. Mass media in this country portrays the U.S. in a positive protective light. It highlights misfortunes of other countries and plays on the strengths of this nation. It is not often that mass media pays attention to the cultures of other countries and if it does, it is only after a tragedy or to show short comings. Watch the trend on CNN.

The Martyrs of the Alamo

After reading the assignment online, I found myself pondering whether or not I found the movie The Martyrs of the Alamo to be racist. I have been sitting here for a while thinking and searching reading others postings to see their opinions, in hopes that it might spark some of my own. I still have nothing. So in conclusion, from my lengthy pondering, I think that the fact that I have no opinion shows that this is not something that caught my attention.

I’m not sure whether I believe that this movie was racist toward one side or the other. I think that there were racist idealisms throughout, but not necessarily solely based on the Mexicans or the Anglo settlers. I think that the movie portrays Santa Anna as being a power hungry irrational man. It also depicts his army as, dare I say, ignorant in their approach. At the same time, the movie depicts the Anglo settlers to be rebellious and in some way cheaters. It placed them in a stubborn and almost forceful light. In my opinion the racism throughout the movie is used to depict a certain picture. Now whether that picture is overall racist, I am undecided.

Moving on to address the issue of women and love throughout the picture. I think that women were shown to be strong in their approach, but they were weakened by the attitudes that the men had towards them. The love of a women and the need to protect her is what motivates the Anglo settlers to revolt. A woman being pestered in the streets by the Mexican army prompts a shooting in the movie. I think in this way it seems as if the men treated the women as objects that needed to be protected, almost like they own them.

Later the movie causes me to contradict my own opinion because it shows women helping within the battle. Instead of showing the women just hiding and being scared, it shows them loading weapons and being nurses. The movie depicts the women here in a strong and valuable light. I found this to be the most interesting part of the movie because in newer films, I have never seen this. The newer movie “The Alamo” shows the women hiding and staying out of the way. This movie portrays them as playing a role in the battle. Considering the reading that we did for Thursday, I now wonder if this is just coincidence or maybe something that is done now to ultimately influence perceptions. I can’t think of any new war movie that shows women fighting in a battle. Are we back in the 1950’s? I really am bothered by these omissions in today’s films. I wonder how often things like this happen. At this point I am going to move on to my post about Thursday’s reading.

The Mangy Parrot and Mexican and Social Classes During 1700's

When I think of someone who is poor in today’s society the last thing that I associate with this state of being is staff and workers. While I was reading the Mangy Parrot, I found it interesting how Periquillo describes his family’s welfare. He often says that his family is poor. Yet, he also often speaks of slaves and schooling. This made me question whether or not his family really was poor or whether they were just of a middle class.

I wonder if what he accomplishes later in the book could have affected his perception of his own family. I find this interesting because I believe that ones surroundings can change their perception of themselves. For instance, being someone who grew up in an area where many families were well off, I often take advantage of things that others consider to be luxuries. I think that maybe Periquillo is somehow similarly jaded. As he tells stories of some of his school mates and their being born to families who fund Catholic Churches, I can’t help but wonder if his perception of being well off or poor is somewhat distorted. His mother and father pay for him to be schooled. This causes me to ponder whether if families that were truly poor could afford the luxury of education in Mexico during this time.

Another thing that piqued my curiosity about his family’s financial being was the fact that he seems to be friends with members of a higher society. This confuses me and causes me to question how Mexican society in these times was arranged? Where classes distinct? I am currently researching this and will be posting again soon regarding social classes in Mexico within the 1700’s.

Religion and Movies..

Being that the United States was founded on freedom of religion, I think that the religious manifestations placed throughout the CDV text are worthy of note. I would first like to focus on the use of the word “Christians”. At the beginning of the text, the word is used in its applied sense. It is used to demonstrate a set of beliefs and a people of these beliefs. However, as the journey progresses, the word almost redefines itself.

In the account of CDV’s journey, he talks about working in the saviors name and for the crown, but when he reaches another group of explorers, he refers to them as “Christians” even though they are not working in Christ like ways. It is almost like the definition of the word has changed from an account of religious affiliation to defining a race of people. It is weird because I automatically associated this with Nazi terms. They started as a religious group, but later transformed into a race. A Nazi was no longer a word to describe a religious affiliation, but a cult. This could be reaching, but rather an association that I made while reading the text. I find it interesting that CDV talks about all of these things that the “Christians” do, and in his own explanation he contradicts the very meaning of the word.

According to Wikipedia and the Bible, Christians are to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind, and strength,” and to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” This is what makes a Christian a believer of Jesus and worthy of savior. The so called “Christians” that CDV encounters do not love thy neighbors as they love themselves. They are feared by Indian tribes throughout the land. They torture, kill, and steel from their fellow man. This brings me to the Requiremento, this writing brought by explorers to share the message of god allows Indians to be seen as humans yet when they explore they take away this humanity by killing and taking advantage of the things which make them giving and peaceful people. I think that something that is ignored is that the Indians were taken advantage of because of their giving traditions; it is almost like they didn’t fight for what was theirs, and they just fled. I think it is important to mention that even though not necessarily Christian people, they were people of a giving nature.

Finally I want to address something that bothered me about the film that we watched in class. In CDV’s writings, he talks about his whole journey as a religious one. Spreading practices of the Christian religion and helping to build what we now know as American culture. I think that the movie fails to capture this. It makes CDV look like he has only taken part in Indian traditions. It makes everything look like it came from the indigenous culture and people. In the book it specifically describes him using Christian techniques to heal the sick Indians. However, in the movie it portrays him as only practicing the Indian ceremonial ways of healing. I think that it was important to the story of CDV to include some of the Christian tactics that he claims he used in healing. I think to mention the use of the sign of the cross over the sick is important to mention because this practice combined the Indian and Christian traditions. This brings me to the reliability of a movie vs. a text. Movies are made to entertain and not to offend. I believe this is why some things that are fictional could have been added to the movie, and some could have been removed to keep from causing controversy. Either way it is always just speculation because in reality, there is no way to know if CDV’s narrative is even 50 percent truth. I guess you have to take it for what it is, and examine it with an open mind. I thought this site on factual errors within movies was interesting: http://screenwriting.lifetips.com/cat/56990/movie-mistakes/index.html

Indian Culture Concerning Women Affects American Culture Today

When reading about the cultural traditions among the Indians I found the caliber of work expected of the women and their value within the tribes to be significantly disproportionate. The native women did much of the hard labor within the tribes. They were essentially responsible for the well being of the men and children. Yet, it seems as if the men still dominate and diligently control the women’s every action. I found it less than coincidental that this relationship among the Indians is something that is seen within American culture and families until the feminist movement, and some might argue that it still exist today.

In the reading, it states that “all these men are accustomed to leaving their wives when there is disagreement between them, and they marry again whomever they please.” This masculine need for agreement shows its trend within the Indian culture. The men are much like the protectors and the women the providers, but it seems like protection is valued more within the Indian culture then providing. After all, they are “warlike people”. This is interesting because it is the forefront for how American housewives will be treated throughout the settling of the New World. Even though it doesn’t seem that the Indians traditions were ever exactly mimicked in American culture, some values along with old world values are mixed to create what has been shown as American culture. Throughout American history, male dominance has been reinforced. American culture suggests that a wife should agree with her husband. Women in American culture are still currently pushing to change this norm, and this is something that might possibly be attributed to Indian culture.

Another example of the ill treatment towards women, and the disproportionate value given to them is on page 125 when Cabeza de Vaca states that “all the Indians whom we saw have as a custom, from the day their wives know they are pregnant, not to sleep with them until after two years of nurturing their children.” The women are also required to nurture children until they are age 12. It is the woman’s sole responsibility to feed the offspring of the tribe and to preserve its continuation but they are treated like objects. The men use them for their convenience, it’s almost like the women are slaves to the male traditions. In America prior to the feminist movement, women were mostly housewives. For a woman to work and protect the families well being, was frowned upon. Staying home and preserving the continuation of a families name was their job. The treatment of Indian women in exploration times was mimicked in American culture for many proceeding years, and some might argue that to some extent it still exist today. See this site on gender salary differences and perceptions within the workplace to view how it can be argued that some Indian traditions concerning the value of women are still affecting Women within the workplace today. http://content.salary.monster.com/articles/gender_wages/?WT.mc_n=ibsid;phi;art01

About Me!

Hi,

My name is Monica and I am a Senior Communications Major at The University of Texas at Arlington. I recently took the LSAT and am looking forward to being admitted to law school in the fall. I am the proud co-owner of an online business that has been operating since 2002. I like running, shopping, giam, and hanging out with friends. I am currently training to run a mini-marathon this spring with my best friend.I am a left hand, strong willed, intuitive girl. I love Diet Coke (because it taste good), don't eat dark meat, and am not a fan of sweets. All and all, I love life, chicken, Friends and family and am always looking to learn something new. I look forward to getting to know all of you this semester.