Latin American Women, Gender and Sexuality - Assignment Example

? Analytical Bibliography on Samuel Brunk’s “Zapata and the Boys: In Search of a Piece of the Revolution” Outline Who Emiliano Zapata Was? - Paragraph 1 Goal of the Paper. - Paragraph 2 Analysis of the Title.- Paragraph 3 Body- Paragraphs 4 -27 Conclusion - Paragraph 28 One among the most remarkable heroes of Mexico, Emilio Zapata, was called the Atilla of the South and had become the most prominent figure of the Mexican Revolution early in the 20th century. His prominence was a result of his creation of a revolutionary guerrilla movement named the Liberation Army of the South in which he had become the authority. Zapata was admired and followed by a lot of peasants as well as the indigenous Mexicans named Zapatistas. This was because he was struggling for the peasants’ political and economic liberation in Southern Mexico. Zapata fought for reforms for agricultural land in order to have the entitlement to these lands in Mexico (Rolls, preface). He, Zapata, is Samuel Brunk’s leading figure in his literary work entitled “Zapata and the City Boys: In Search of a Piece of the Revolution” (Brunk 33 – 65). It is the case that this article has been produced in many forms. From its original text, it had undergone revisions before the printing and circulation. Aside from the print version, technological innovation has also made it possible to have the text’s electronic version in the pdf format. The main goal of this paper is to write an analytical bibliography of the text through having a close examination of the thirty – three (33) page text of “Zapata and the City Boys: In Search of a Piece of Revolution” as a physical object. This paper aims to critically analyze the manuscript of the Brunk’s text in order to have a closer reading, understanding and analysis of it. From the title of the article itself, Brunk had recognized that Zapata was not alone in the midst of the revolution. There were these city boys who had played a very significant role Zapata’s rebellion. These city boys were the ones who had assisted Zapata in his fight for his revolutionary movement for an agrarian reform against the Mexican government. Nonetheless, Brunk has divulged to me the shortcomings of the relationship between Zapata and his city boys that made its way for Zapatismo’s failure on achieving a share of the national power. First of all, Zapanta’s heroism especially his capacity to become a leader was questioned. The issue had come from his literacy. Brunk has stated that he was not as a revolutionary Mexican was not an educated one (33). But despite his lack of education, he was able to rise himself to recognition as a hero of the Mexican political arena regardless of the fact that he was not literate (Brunk 33). He was considered by his supporters as literate while his detractors had regarded him as otherwise. This debate was long on – going but there are evidences that Zapata had the capacity to read and write. Nonetheless, based from my analysis of the text, I could say that his intellectual power had its very own limitations. Zapata’s national prominence had begun in 1911 but he had realized that this prominence at a national level was indeed necessary for a piece of a national revolution. He must have this in order for him to have a share of national power in order for the demands for land reform and municipal independence to be passed. However, to begin with this search for power, he must have enough education to be able to in such a political project. Even the concept of what a Mexican nation is was something that Zapata did not fully understand. This is because of the fact that he had not even travelled further than the south – central Mexico. This education was something that was lacking him being the leader of the Liberation Army of the South (Brunk 34). Given that Zapata was lacking the wisdom to completely take charge of his Zapatismo, the city boys had filled up this need for him. By city boys, Brunk has meant that these people who were mostly male and young of that sort had originated from an urban setting outside Zapata’s place, Morelos (34). They were mostly males but Dolores Jimenez y Muro, Paulina Maraver Cortes and Juana Gutierrez de Mendoza were the exceptions because these city women who were also connected to the movement had similarly played significant roles for Zapata and Zapatismo (Macias 54 – 62). On the one hand, the city boys’ place was something that was considerably alien to the majority of Zapatistas. Aside from being from the urban environment, these people were much more educated as compared to Zapata. Equipped by knowledge, the city boys had happened to be important to the revolutionary movement. They functioned as consultants, medical care providers, spies, providers of assistance to the organization, and sometimes, took the lead of the fights of the Zapatista movement (Brunk 35). Aside from those roles, to a large extent, it was the city boys who had managed the Zapatas negotiations through writing manifestos, carrying and spreading messages, and representing Zapatismo (Brunk 35). Nevertheless, despite these roles, the significance of the city boys’ role as Zapata’s intellectuals was not given that much importance of some scholars. This is for the reason that the majority of the city boys’ presence had just materialized right before a well – defined revolution was coming. This means that their roles were not really critical in igniting a piece of revolution (Brunk 35). In the attempt to discuss the relationship among Zapata, the city boys, and the national power, Brunk has stated that Zapata had this nature of dependence on other educated man in taking political charge (35). This was not just on the start of the movement or on the progress of the movement itself, but this was even prior to the movement. This reliance was because of the fact that during those years, politics was believed to be a thing exclusive for the educated people. But even if this was the case, he had shown a small role for change through participation in elections (Womack 10 – 36). On the one hand, Zapata had achieved his authority in the council just because of appointment as made by Anenecuilco. He got his political position through being elected without any campaign. It was just through gathering and voting. In this manner, his lack of education was something that was not a hindrance for him to develop his reputation as a leader (Brunk 36). However, the role of an intellectual had come in when Torres Burgos who had some experienced in extra - local politics, instead of Zapata, was sent to Texas for a dialogue with Francisco Madero. Nonetheless, the conversation regarding the participation of the Maderista rebellion had resulted to Madero’s position of making Burgos instead of Zapata the leader of the Morelos rebellion. It was the case that Madero and Burgos did not completely comprehend the rebellion that they were initiating. Likewise, Burgos did not like the fact that the violence was an unavoidable case of the revolt. The struggles of Morelos were something not suited for Burgos or any other genteel. It was the case that the revolt had not yet even started but Burgos had quit. Upon abandoning the movement, Burgos was killed the next day. It was the time that Zapata, a man who really knew and understood the reasons for the revolution, had become the head of the movement (Brunk 36 – 37). This piece of revolution was something that the dwellers of Morelos had been searching for. Nonetheless, given Zapata’s lack of education, others had shown hesitance for him to take charge of the political movement. That is why Burgos was designated to lead the revolt in the Morelos. In this kind revolutionary movement though, the more important need was not in terms of literacy but in terms of devotion for change. The real determination that fuelled this revolutionary movement was having the real experience of being powerless of their lands and being dominated by others. It was Zapata who really understood why the need for a national share of power and the need for revolt. This was in order for the citizens of Morelos to have their agricultural lands. This was something that Zapata and the others had desired which someone alien from their root cause of their struggles did not understand wholly. This was the edge of Zapata among the other men who were much more educated than he was. Meanwhile, the other intellectual who had significance to the Zapatistas was Otilio Montano, Zapata’s compadre or buddy prior to the revolution. Montano was a son of a campesino or farmer but he did not prefer to devote his life on farming. Instead, he had become a professor despite the limitation of his formal education. As a professor and intellectual, he served the Zapatismo in promulgating and justifying their manifesto. He also served as a negotiator between Zapata and Madero. When cooperation between the two leaders was not agreeable, Zapata and Montano assisted each other in writing the Plan of Ayala, the proclamation of Zapatista intent. The Plan of Ayala declared the reasons of struggles of the Zapatismo. The Zapatistas were fighting for land entitlement, freedom and justice. It was an attempt to recreate the legitimacy that they had lost for themselves. This Plan of Ayala that both Zapata and Madero composed had served as Zapata’s bible (Brunk 37 - 38). Moreover, it was also the case that the near disruption of collaboration between Zapata and Madero was also a result of the becoming of residents of Morelos to be Maderistas. Madero’s movement had given the villagers of Morelos hope that they could have entitlements of the lands. However, what had made their alliance in the revolution to an end was when Madero did not take seriously the Plan of Ayala. Zapata had to go with his plan alone without Madero. Zapata had to be alone building an alliance that would fuel their piece of national revolution (Brunk 38). Zapatista was a movement that was in need of connections at a national level. This was because these ties would enable the success of their movement to achieve a piece of revolution. In this regard, their movement had searched for new alliances. Pascual Orozco and Emilio Vasquez Gomez, both Maderistas, were influenced by Zapata to join Zapatista. Nonetheless, both were not successful alliances (Brunk 39). In this regards, Brunk’s view was not the same as Warman who thought that Zapatista’s move resulted to mistakes of desperation (Warman 334). On the one hand, because of the geographical location of Morelos, being close to Mexico City, dwellers of Morelos, in particular, Zapata and Montano, were able to discuss about land tenure cases to lawyers. One among Zapatismo’s urban recruit was a student named Abraham Martinez. Martinez had become one among the most significant spokesperson of Zapata. His alliance was just almost before the revolt had begun. Other city boys and girl who had joined and supported Zapata’s movement were Dolores Jimenez y Muro, Manuel Palafox, Genaro Amezcua and Enrique Villa (Brunk 40). Meanwhile, according to Brunk, the Zapatista had come to increase and move its army in 1913 when General Huerta was in control (40). During this era, people had joined Zapata in his movement. However, he was facing a new political challenge. Zapata had already started to reach the peak of affecting the national political arena. Also the challenge was that the Zapatista camp was already composed by a number of intellectuals who were not locals of Morelos but had originated from the city. The issue of what really was the relationship between Zapata and his intellectuals was somehow problematic because only a few documents about Zapatismo were done by Zapata himself. Most were made by his advisers and aides (Brunk 41). In this regard, Brunk has thought that Zapata as a leader was greatly affected by the decisions made by his consultants. It was the case that Zapata was on the large extent, influenced by his political advisers. Nonetheless, Brunk has recognized what really the position and relation of the city boys were when they had been accepted in Zapatista camp. It was the case that because of their lack of wisdom, the Zapatistas had welcomed and accepted those whom for them were considerably educated. This is for the reason that they had high respect for knowledge. The Zapatismo movement was also pragmatic in a sense that they used to value skills and talents that they believed was something useful and advantageous for them. These skills and talents did not need to be extraordinary. In fact, Alfredo Serratos was an example of this. Serratos had already impressed Zapata and the rest of his allies through letting them know that he could speak English. Without a doubt, if one was an urbanite, it was not an issue. As long as that person was literate and able to read and write, Zapatistas would accept that person as an intellectual. The high acceptance of Zapatistas for the educated people was coming from their personal stance. It was important to note that majority of the villagers of Morelos were lacking in education. This had explained why they had great respect and appreciation for education including the people who were educated (Brunk 41). It was the case that the composition of Zapatistas was majority made up of dwellers of Morelos who were mostly illiterate. On the one hand, Zapata greatly welcomed the urbanites because of the purpose that they could contribute to the movement. However, the initial problem had originated from the lack of trust. These people were someone regarded as foreigners to the rest of the farmers. Their own ways were something considerably strange for the farm workers. According to Brunk, most of the time, the villagers of Morelos had warned to shoot the intellectuals who were not familiar to them because of the way they dressed themselves up in some fancy city clothes (42). In this manner, it goes to show that it was not just a simple issue of lack of trust given to the outsiders but something more than that. For the locals of Morelos, the clothing of the urbanites as they entered their territory was indicating that they were the enemies that they were fighting against with. Though the city folks had managed to change their clothes once inside the territory of Zapata in order to fit in, the villagers of Morelos were scared that these city boys would seize the power, control and influence that they, Zapatistas, had triumphantly gained over the long years of struggle (Brunk 42). It is important to note that the issue of trust within any alliance is something indispensible for the success of the movement. In this manner, the non – homogeneity of the locals of Morelos and the individuals from the city was the reason for the problem of trust. On the one hand, another city boy who really had risen to prominence in the Zapatismo movement was Manuel Palafox, an ex – engineering student. At first, there was a tension between Zapata and Palafox that was why Palafox had been shot by Zapata. However, Palafox was forgiven. Meanwhile, Palafox’s rise to prominence as Zapata’s intellectual had begun when he benefitted from the errors made by Montano. He was at an advantageous point of being a prosecutor. For Zapata, Palafox’s exemplifying of his superior skills was rewarded. On the one hand, this intellectual had managed to securely establish himself in control. Palafox had been able to situate himself in a stand to control the Zapatista’s headquarters during the most serious stages of the revolt (Brunk 44 – 45). Moreover, Zapata’s interaction with the city boys and their roles on Zapata’s decision – making strategy were something uncertain. For the kind of man Zapata was, too strong – minded and too cautious to let his advisers take the full control of the negotiations with others, it was a sort of questionable that his political decisions were shaped by his advisers. Nonetheless, it was the case that he had greatly depended on his advisers for his decisions as he was dealing with the national political arena. Given this uncertainty, the best speculation as stated by Brunk was that Zapata had allotted authority to the city boys at some point but he was the one to decide on the big ones. It was also viewed that the Zapata’s way of deciding was a collaborative process of gathering all the advices of his intellectuals. From these advices, Zapata would choose the best and would make it his decision (Brunk 43). After different sets of events and issues of trust and betrayal, Zapata felt that there were no alliances that were worth having. Because of this, his intellectuals were confused on the fact that they were not certain of which way to go. Nonetheless, they believed that there might be some from the Constitutionalist who would like to join their fight. However, there was a problem with the Zapatismo. Zapata’s allies were not harmonious. Palafox and Montano had a clash. This in turn, would affect how they would likely to expand their alliances (Brunk 48 – 49). Meanwhile, Venustiano Carranza, the leader of the Constitutionalist, was a person who would chance upon the revolt in order to fulfil his goal. Carranza had no concern for the demands for changes of the people but just purely lip service among Zapatistas. However, there were three (3) agents of Carranza namely Juan Sarabia, Antonio Villareal, and Luis Cabrera who brought to Zapatismo one among the most significant political opportunity of the revolt. These 3 men had been involved in the demands of Zapatistas for agricultural reform (Brunk 45 – 49). On the one hand, Palafox had demanded to the Carrancitas to give in to Zapatismo’s Plan of Ayala. The other party was disappointed due to Zapata’s absence though they acknowledged the Plan of Ayala. However, Palafox contended that recognitions of principles were not sufficient but they must submit to the Plan of Ayala without changing a single thing in the manifesto. As a result, Carrancistas had rejected the Plan of Ayala. Well, basically, this outcome was also triggered by the outlook of Carrancistas towards Zapata and his intellectuals. For them, Zapata was someone who was manipulated by his intellectual advisers, especially Palafox and Serratos. It was also the case that Zapata had permitted the doings of Palafox of alienating the spokespersons of Carranza. The Carrancistas had rejected the Plan of Ayala on the large part, because of Palafox himself. As long as Palafox’s presence was there, Carrancistas said that they would not return to the lands of Morelos. Making alliances was a failure for the Zapatistas because they were perceived to be stubborn. In this regard, they were not moved by the ambitions of Zapatismo for social reforms (Brunk 50 – 53). In spite of the issue about Palafox, another intellectual of Zapata had happened to be the most important member of the movement. He was Antonio Diaz Soto y Gama, Zapata’s word man. In Soto’s speech, he stated what was outline by Palafox. He also discussed the broken promises of Mexico to some of its people. However, Soto was ready to make the most out of the anti – diplomatic position of Zapatismo. It was the case that he already had lost the belief in Zapatismo’s main aims. Instead of influencing Zapata’s goal for having a piece of national share of power in order for them to obtain the reforms they had been fighting for, Soto had somehow distorted it through his speech (Brunk 54 – 55). In this manner, it is indeed the case that Zapata’s intellectuals had contributed to the diplomatic failures. Their relationships to each other were something that had its own shortcomings. The author of the document Plan of Ayala, Montano, was not satisfied in his position especially that he was put out of his place by the intellectuals from the city. Indeed, it really was of alarming concern that the author of the Zapatismo’s document and the movement were in conflict. This had entailed a real contradiction within the movement and how the others at a larger scale could view it. This was because again of the fact that Zapatismo was pressing the Plan of Ayala which was written by Montano who was now against the movement. After Montano, it was Palafox who was brought down by the movement. He was then given only a limited role in the movement. There were lots of Palafox’s haters because of the fact that he had suppressed many other intellectuals of Zapata. After Palafox as an adviser, Zapata had replaced him with Gilardo Magana (Brunk 58 – 60). Zapata was still hoping that he could revive the movement that he had initiated. He was hoping that there would be a political initiative. He was hopeful but at the same time desperate to meet the Colonel Jesus Guajardo, a Constitutionalist. Instead of making a social change, Zapata was killed on the day he would meet Guajardo. In his death, many had resented. However, not because Zapata was dead, it meant that the fight of Zapatismo was over. Magana, his political adviser, was chosen by the people to take over Zapata’s leadership. In 1920, by supporting the Obgregon’s Plan of Agua Prieta, the Zapatistas had finally achieved their piece of revolution (Brunk 62). In the analysis of the manuscript of “Zapata and the City Boys: In Search for a Piece of Revolution,” Brunk is clearly telling in his article the relationship of Zapata, his intellectuals and national power. For Brunk, Zapata’s limitation being a leader was because he was lacking in education. That explains why he needed to depend on others in order for his presence in the national political arena to thrive. However, his dependence on the city boys was something that had put him to his own disadvantage. Nevertheless, he was not admitting this fact. Indeed, the city boys had benefitted him on some extents, especially as advisers and spokespersons. However, the downfall of having the city boys was that their presence in the movement was something questionable. Not all of them had shared the same sentiments that Zapata had for his movement. Some of them were just ambitious enough to seize power. Also, within the group of intellectuals themselves, there were also issues. Meanwhile, trust within the movement had also become a concern especially that the city boys were some people that did not fully understand the origins of the struggles as driven by the people of Morelos. This was something that had contributed to the shortcomings of Zapatismo. However, Zapata recognized that he needed these intellectuals from the city in order for him to achieve a share of national power, a piece of revolution. Work Cited: Brunk, Samuel. Zapata and the City Boys: In Search for a Piece of the Revolution. Hispanic American Historical Review 73.1 (1993): 33 – 65. Web. Rolls, Albert P. Emiliano Zapata: A Biography. California: Greenwood, 2011. Print. Macias, Anna. Women and Mexican Revolution, 1910 – 1920. The Americas 37.1 (1980): 54 – 62. Web. Warman, Arturo. The Political Project of Zapatismo. trans. Judith Brister in Friedrich Katz, Riot, Rebellion and Revolution: Rural Social Conflict in Mexico. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1998. Print. Womack, John. Zapata and the Mexican Revolution. New York: Vintage Books, 1986. Print. Read More