Soldaderas and the FSLN

• I found these articles to be some of the more interesting that I have read in this class. This is probably because the logistics of warfare are always interesting to me.
  
• I was surprised to find that women played such an active role in the Mexican Revolution of 1910, both as soldaderas and as combatants. I disagree with the statement brought up in class that "camp follower" is a derogatory term. Camp followers have been a part of warfare since time immemorial; for example, the peltasts of Greece were usually made up of helots or servants of the wealthier hoplites. As evidenced by the article, they play a crucial role in the tactical success of a military force, especially considering the example given by the Zapatistas. They were highly effective in Morelos, but on extended operations they were less than stellar due to the lack of soldaderas.
• The topic of female soldiers was interesting to me; however, items such as this always seem to be approached from the perspective of exoticness, they are talked about simply because they were uncommon, rather than being part and parcel of the armed forces. I did find it interesting that they were used more frequently towards the end of the conflict; however, this is due to the massive loss of male soldiers rather than a change in perspective.
• The article on the FSLN painted them too positive of a light from a feminist perspective; however, the author does make sense when she speaks of the fact that the Revolution had to consolidate itself against the Contras and the possible military intervention of the U.S. They did subjugate female issues in the interest of the Revolution, but that does not excuse that fact especially when considering that around 30% of the military of the FSLN were women. This shows that they had not only an interest in the Revolution, but also an investment as well. Their betrayal (although that may be too strong of a word) by the Sandinistas, as well as their absence from the peace negotiations rings of the disenfranchisement of the Mexican Revolution from the campesinos and indigenous that participated in it.
  

Frida Kahlo

• Frida is an interesting character to study. I have always been interested in her paintings; however, he journal leaves a bit to be desired. This is logical considering that she was not writing it for public consumption. When I read through her journal, I noticed that a lot of her writing was directed towards Diego. It seems that their relationship soared from great highs to great lows.
• One thing about her work is that it seemed very self-centered. I do not mean that in the sense that she was selfish, but that she was the theme of many of her paintings. She stated that she painted herself because she was the subject she knew the best, but it does seem a little self-centered to me. I do admire the fact that she created her own enigma, but I do find Diego Rivera's work much more appropriate and revolutionary because he tried to capture Mexico in his murals "tal como es".
• When I was watching the movie I did not think that the scene with her and Trotsky was real; I believed that the director was simply taking artistic license. I looked it up, and as I'm sure you are aware, it was true! That is absolutely incredible! She garnered a lot more respect from me because of that action. It also made me reevaluate my thoughts about her; if she was sexually, emotionally and spiritually appealing to him, then she must have been doing something right.
• I must say, I was not impressed with her poetry. A lot of it seemed random, especially the stuff in the beginning of the journal. She just put random words on the page; that is not poetry. It is like arguing that the picture below is art: it is not. It is a toilet.
• Car, bike, people, road, animal, death, smog, journey. This is not poetry. They are words. Then again, she was not famous for her poetry, but for her paintings, so perhaps I should not judge so harshly.