Angela Batallas

I chose to write about the Batallas article because I found it much more interesting than the Sáenz one.

• I found this article one of the more interesting ones of the readings.
• The first thing that I admired about Batallas was the amount of courage that it must have taken to assert herself as a member of a doubly-oppressed class: a female slave.
  
• The second, and probably most interesting from a political view, was her likening of her disenfranchisement, both as a slave and as the plaintiff in a failed contract, as an assault on the new republic itself. This sets the stage for an ideological crisis of freedom and slavery. How can the freedom of the new republics be true if does not mean freedom for all? She used this argument to her advantage in her case. As the article states, "Did those fighting tyranny have the right to tyrannize others." Unfortunately, such reforms were tardy in coming.
  
• Bolívar himself was an abolitionist, he decried slavery as useless and uneconomical, and freed his own slaves in 1821 as on a condition of military service.
• Idlefonso's relationship with Batallas is difficult to interpret. To me he seemed as a youth, unaware of the consequences of his tryst with a member of the lower class. I do not believe in love, but he did seem to care for her. This is evidenced by his treatment of her at the begininng of their relationship; he did not coerce her into a relationship and even waited for a few weeks before he propisitioned her. His behavoir during the trial puzzles me. Perhaps he was threatened with his inheritence or something of that nature when Batallas pressed for her freedom, or perhaps he was offended that a female slave would flaunt her independence and their "dishonorable" relationship so freely.
  

Sor Juana

Sor Juana is one of my favorite figures in Latin American History. She is one of the few intellectuals of the time, and the only woman. In her letter "La Repuesta" she makes some interesting points:

• Her use of Biblical passages to defend what she saw as an assault on intellectualism by the Catholic Church. She is told that because of her pursuit of knowledge, she will condemn herself to hell. She thinks that this is interesting because "I am the executioner and the martyr".
• One of my favorite quotes by Sor Juana is in this passage: "If Aristotle would have cooked stews, he would have written more". I like this for several reasons: it is a defense of her, as she puts it "feminine art" that women have no other option or choice to practice. Sor Juana was an accomplished alchemist and chemist; most of her knowledge, as she puts it, comes from her experiences in the kitchen.
• Socrates said, "The only thing that I know is that I know nothing". Sor Juana puts a humorous twist on this, implying that in order for someone to be a great fool, he must speak many languages in order to be a fool in them as well!
• One thing that struck me throughout the letter is her humility. She is constantly referring to herself as not being worthy of salvation or as an ignoramus.
  
• "What a strange madness: to exhaust yourself more by removing credit than by adding it". This statement sums up the entire letter which is a defense against persecution by the church: I spend more time trying to be humble and not to upset the hierarchy of things than working on my own works.
• One of my favorite parts of this letter is where she apologizes to her lady, Filotea de la Cruz, for addressing her in the "tú" form, rather than the "usted" form.
  

Sor Juana, in my opinion, is one of the most tragic figures of colonial times. She is obviously remarkable intelligent, evidenced by her use of the classics and the Bible in her defense. She was miles above contemporaries. However, despite all of this, she was marginalized by the Church and her fellow nuns; hence the tragic tale of women in Latin America. How much do you think that society would have been advanced if she were allowed to actually speak her mind and be a pure, humanist intellectual?

Virgin de Guadalupe

• I personally revile the image of the Virgin of Guadalupe for two reasons: it gives people false hope and it represents marianismo and female subjugation. False hope is fairly reasonable, the article even states that the "miraculus image" was probably copied by a local indigenous person. Yet people pray and cry and tithe to the church rather than seeking true salvation which is the acceptence of the fact that one day you will die. You won't live on forever. Celebrate now, instead of praying to some imaginary "big brother" in the sky. That's my problem with religion: it takes the human out of humanity. Everything that happens is due to someone or something else. "Oh, I cheated on my wife. The devil tempted me. Jesus will forgive me." This is simply absolving yourself from the blame of your misdeed, or "sin". Or "I got that promotion at work, God must have heard my prayers", when instead you got that promotion because you worked hard, God has nothing to do with it! Religion takes the human element out of all of our actions, whether "good" or "bad". Sorry, I got a little of track here.
• The Virgin of Guadalupe also represents marianismo and female subjugation. She is often portrayed and perceived as the "ideal" woman. Submissive unto the male figures in her life (God, Jesus), she is saddened for her son's suffering, just as the marianista weeps while she prays for the sins of the men in her life. Although it cannot be denied that not everyone views her in this light (e.g., during the War of Independence the revolutionaries affixed her image to their banners), she represents subjugation of women by men and religion.
  

Re-rethinking Malinche

• I have conflicting opinions on Malinche, so the following points are me trying to play both sides of the argument. What is stated here is not necessarily how I feel about the subject.
  
• Malinche must be vilified. True, in the overall context of her role in the Conquista she may have been a woman simply trying to survive, but the indigenous peoples of Latin America must never forget the atrocities committed upon them by the Europeans. Attempting to justify her actions is similar to saying that tribal leaders in Africa were simply "trying to survive" by selling their captured to European slave traders. Or forgiving white police officers beating a black man by saying that they are simply "part of the system". She must vilified because she represents European/Mestizo dominance to the indigenous peoples of Latin America. Instead of betraying the Europeans, she translates for them and saves their lives on more than one occasion.
  
• Malinche was simply acting in her own best interests: survival. Even though she was the mouthpiece of Cortez, she had no choice in what she said. The Spaniards would have killed her and found another Malinche. As Octavio Paz puts it, she is truly la Chingada, the violated one. Mexico, and the rest of Latin America for that matter, were born out of the violation of the indigenous peoples by the Europeans. Although some might disagree, I believe that Malinche should be viewed as a racially unifying force in Mexico simply because she represents the racial and cultural synthesis of Mexico: la chingada (Malinche and the indigenous peoples) and el chingón (Cortez, the Spainards).

Catalina de Erauso

• I wish that I could have read this book in its original Spanish, I might when I have the time! In the translator's notes, Steptos talks about how she would refer to herself in masculine and feminine forms. I am courisous as to when she would do that.
• One thing that shocked me about this account was the amount of violence that she committed. She killed three men over being called a cuckold. I was glad to learn in class discussion that I was not the only one who was a bit incredulous about HOW violent she was.
• This does shed an interesting light onto gender roles at these times. She was obviously more comfortable in in men's clothing, but was that because she enjoyed being perceived as a man or because she enjoyed perceiving herself as a man? Or perhaps both? One thing that I find interesting is that she gained widespread acceptance after her true sex was found out. Spain under the Counterreformation was not exactly a bastion of progressive thought. I would think that she would have had a harder time finding acceptance. Perhaps it was because she "retained her virginity" as she told the pope.
• Was Erauso a lesbian? There are hints of it in the reading, when she "rubs the inside of a girl's leg"at the enragement of her father. I cannot help but feel that particular line must be mistranslated or perhaps there is a colloquial meaning in Spanish or Basque that escapes English translation. She may have had little to no sexual preference at all, preferring violence and vagabondage instead.
• One thing that I find interesting was that she was not fighting for woem's rights or equality for women, although by besting many men in combat she may have helped popular perceptions at the time.
  

Journal Entry 1

• Marianismo, the female component of machismo, is a very interesting topic. In my opinion, it is a reflection of male dominance of females in Latin American culture with the perception of the Virgin Mary as the female ideal. It is a sad yet stalwart viewpoint that reflects the suppression of females. Although the reading talks about it being more prevalent in Latin America, I believe that one could trace it roots to the Reconquista of Spain. In those days it was far more common for a woman to lose a husband or a son in battle due to the ongoing state of warfare for 700 years in the Iberian Peninsula.
• One thing that is interesting in the differences between Latin America and Spain is the etymology of language. If I may be a bit crude, I find it interesting that in Spain a common colloquialism is “hijo de puta”, or son of a bitch, whereas in Latin America (especially Mexico) the more common saying is “hijo de la chingada”, or, literally translated, “son of the fucked one”. One can easily see the metaphor in the Conquista of the New World by Spain and its subjugation of the Latin American indigenous population.
• Although this may sound sexist, I do believe that male-based warfare has its roots in biology for the simple reason that a MAN is necessary for reproduction, but MEN are not; meaning that the loss of part of the male population in warfare does not necessarily mean as great of a loss in reproductive capabilities as it would if the same amount of women were lost in warfare. I am not saying that this is morally correct or not chauvinistic, but simply biology; however, with the advent of population control in many western societies, this reasoning for the exclusion of women from combat no longer holds up.