This last week we watched a documentary about religion in Latin America.  One thing the documentary talks about are religions that have sprouted up among holes in Catholic commitment.  African-influenced spiritist religions like Candomble and Pentecostal churches are just a few examples of religions that exist all over Latin America.  One clip showed a Pentecostal ceremony taking place, with the preacher standing on a stage in front of a big crowd in some kind of stadium.  The preacher was proclaiming proudly that if they did not see the Holy Spirit descend on someone in the crowd, at that moment, he would burn the cross behind him and denounce Christianity for good.
Im guessing that a few people thought that seemed a little odd, or at least, a little radical.  But, that's how some of these Pentecostal ceremonies really are.  Unfortunately, I've been to one.
In my senior year of high school I went to the Republica Dominicana for a mission trip over Spring Break. One day we accompanied our host to a "ceremony" that her church was involved in.  Our group of thirty high schoolers had no idea what we were getting ourselves into.
The ceremony was huge.  Thousands of Dominicans piled into a professional baseball stadium to be a part of it.  There was a lot of music, which was good, but we could not understand or sing it very well.  After almost two hours of music, the priest got onto the stage.  He talked loudly but quickly and was impossible for me to understand.  He was very passionate, and the people responded to his words with "amens" and other sayings I didn't recognize.  Then, the man got off the stage, and more music was played.  We realized with agony that the main sermon was still yet to come.
After almost five hours, the ceremony was over.  The main preacher had been treated like a celebrity.  He was so different than any preacher I've ever heard before, until I saw the clip of the Pentecostal ceremony last week. The whole thing was such a unique experience.  People fainted at the word of God.  Others spoke in tongues.
Initially, our group just felt out of place because we didn't speak Spanish and we were some of the only gringos in the stadium.  We were uncomfortable with the things we saw that were not in our vision of Christianity.  Then, we felt challenged.  We began to think differently about our time in the Dominican and about our views on Christianity.
This is my last blog for this class.  As I think about the journey we've been on throughout the year, I'm reminded of my trip to the Dominican Republic.  I came into this class with minimal expectations.  It was my first college class.  I wasn't a history buff or very enthusiastic about Spanish.  I felt a little out of place.
Now that I'm leaving, I believe that this class has had a big impact on me.  The professors have challenged me to think critically and to learn in a broad, multidisciplinary way.  My fellow peers have been supportive and challenging in all the right ways.
So, everyone, here's to a great year.  Adios, mis amigos.

What's really so wrong with Communism?

Even though I know I have freedom of speech here in the good ol’ US of A, I am still a little bit scared to write about this topic.  I feel as though it may fall into the wrong hands and I’ll be called to a congressional hearing where they’ll condemn me a communist and send me Guantanamo Bay.  My friends will hate me.  My family will suffer.  Public universities won’t accept me.  The only place I’ll be able to get a job is at Walmart. 

          If that happens, I hope my classmates would come to my aid, arguing in my defense that I am, in fact, not a communist, and that I just wanted to have a conversation about the reality of Communism. 

          You see, I don’t think Communism is inherently a bad thing.  The essential ideas behind it are good.  Everyone deserves to have food, clothing, and a certain quality of life.  Why should some die of hunger while others gorge themselves at all-you-can eat buffets?  Communism is supposed to put everything in the control of the people, eradicate classes, and eliminate private property.  On paper, these ideas are sound.  The problem is, economically, communism doesn’t work.

          If the government has control of the industries, and everyone works for them and receives the same wages, what encourages the workers to work at all?  They receive the same pay whether they sit on their ass, doing nothing, or if they work their butts off.  Communism eliminates incentives.  Another problem arises with private property.  If no one owns property, then they have no incentives to take care of it.  Here’s an example.  A group of five farmers ask their communist government to buy them a new tractor.  At first, the farmers are all better off because they get to use a tractor that they didn’t have before.    The problem is, taking care of the tractor takes time, money, and effort.  None of the farmers own the tractor, they each only get to use it for one day a week, so who maintains the tractor?  No one.  There are no incentives to take care of property that no one owns.

          Americans should not be scared of Communism, as long as we also consider why it is likely to fail.  There is nothing wrong with thinking about the equality Communism offers, unless you are someone with power or a ton of money who benefits from inequality.  Perhaps one day, these ideas can be morphed and incorporated into our society in a way that really works, so that problems like children dying of hunger can be solved.  

Dramatic Scene from The Underdogs

     One of the discussion questions for The Underdogs asked us what scene from the story that we would choose to film and how we would film it.  I chose to dramatize the scene of the cock-fight from the end of the novel, and I kinda had some fun with it, so I decided to expand here in my blog.  It doesn't seem like the most exciting scene, I know, but I think I managed to make it pretty interesting.  First, a little information on the way I interpreted the events. I thought that the cock-fight was a metaphor for the revolution.  The chickens represent both the revolutionary and the federal soldiers.  They are thrown into an arena to fight and they aren’t really sure why they do it, but they fight desperately until the other is dead.  The chickens are a great comparison because, like the soldiers, they are controlled by invisible hands, forces that are much bigger than them.  Here's how I would shoot the scene.  

First shot:  Venancio violently snatches a chicken out of a cage in a nearby hut.  Meco does the same with a different chicken.  Valderrama begins to play a solemn tune from the guitar.

Second shot: Flash back to a teenage boy being pulled away from his mother and forced to join the Federal Army.  A different teenager is kicked out of his home after having an altercation with the police- he wanders until he stumbles into a rebel army and joins their ranks.  The same tune form the first shot is playing all the while in the background.

Third shot:  The chickens are being prepared for battle with knives strapped on their legs.  The arena is set.  A crowd begins to gather.  The tune changes.  It is now more up-beat and excitable.

Fourth shot: The soldiers are training and preparing for war.  They're given guns and ragged uniforms.  They practice shooting at glass bottles. They take their positions on the battlefield, full of raw excitement, ready to kill the enemy.  

Fifth shot:  The chickens are riled up.  The men begin to talk loudly, eagerly anticipating the fight.  The music gets louder and faster.  Bets are made.  The men are yelling now.  The chickens are placed into the arena.  The music stops.  The men are quiet.  The chickens hesitate, their eyes darting around.   All of a sudden, they attack in a whirlwind of claws, feathers, and blood.  In a matter of seconds, a chicken is dead and the fight is over.  The crowd disperses.  The winning chicken is placed back in his cage.  All is quiet.  

Sixth shot:  The two soldiers, eager for their first fight, run into battle.  Having fired off their first round at the earliest sign of movement, they are forced into hand-to hand combat. They meet in the middle.  Everything around them is chaos.  Both soldiers are yelling.  One of them thrusts his bayonet into the other's chest.  At that moment, the soldier looks at the face of the man he's just stabbed.  He recognizes him.  As he holds the dying soldier in his hands, memories flood his brain.  All is quiet; time seems to stop.  He remembers two young boys, laughing together as they jump off clay banks into a peaceful blue river.  End of scene.

Reaction to Jacqueline's post #6

Nice post! I also talked about the role of women in Latin America. 
There are a couple of things that I wanted to point out. First, I think that the inclusion of women in the revolution was a very progressive idea and is definitely a milestone for women's rights. The only difference is, I wouldn't attribute this feat to Zapata, but to the peasant culture. Yes, Zapata was the leader and he allowed it, but he could not have allowed it if the culture didn't support it in the first place. It's my belief that peasant women had a lot more respect and individual liberties than elite women and women in other societies. I believe this to be true because peasant families simply couldn't afford to shelter their women like elite families could. 
Secondly, the film Viva Zapata! may not have shown women fighting in rank with men on the battlefield, but it did not completely exclude their importance to the revolution. There is the scene where women bravely approach the guarded city walls and sacrifice their lives lighting the dynamite to explode the walls. Before they had done this, one of the guards said to watch out for the women, because he "didn't trust the women any more than the men." There is another scene where you see women raiding the bodies of dead soldiers. Finally, when Zapata is being transported on the trail as a prisoner, men, women, and children all take part in surrounding his caravan. 
It is not in your face, and perhaps the intention is to keep the focus on barbarism vs. civilization, but I think the movie actually does a pretty good job representing the role women had in the revolution. 
It's surprising to me that the Federal army would have used any women soldiers. Perhaps they were used more as cooks and nurses, rather than for any actual fighting?
Anyways, thanks for the insight on a very interesting topic.

Women of Latin America

         In Viva Zapata!, a commander protecting the city from Zapata and the rebels warned his men that they could not trust the women, even the ones that were just going to the market.  He said they were just as likely as the men to aid Zapata in a revolt.  As it turns out, the women were the ones who sacrificed their lives to light the dynamite that blew up the city's walls.  This shows that, in poor communities, women were seen as strong individuals who not only understood what went on with the revolution but were a big part of it.
          It seems to me that poor and middle class women in Latin America had a degree of strength and a certain level of respect attributed to them that was not found in many other societies at the time.  Poor mulatto and indigenous women ran the home.  Familial lineages tended to go through the mother.  Women sold things in the markets.  I think the best example is the one from Viva Zapata!, because it shows that women were seen as valuable even in politics and war, an arena that would traditionally be reserved solely for the men.  Perhaps these women were used solely because the rebels were desperate and would take any advantage they could get.  But I think that for a majority of Latin Americans, women were given a lot of respect and were seen as more than just child-bearers.
          In the early 20th century, feminism in the US was merely non-existent.  What may have been called feminism was just information made available to women on how to become better cooks and mothers.  Like Roosevelt said in his speech, the main goal in life for women was to find a good husband and produce children.  The United States was to be brave and manly.  I think that Latin America, however, was more open to feminist ideas.  Obviously, women were not seen as equal to men, even in poor communities.  I'm just arguing that, compared with other countries, Latin America as a whole was more open to feminism.
        Dario's poem to Roosevelt highlights these differences.  It's subtle, but Dario displays a view of Latin America that is more accepting of feminism.  He says that Latin America "lives on love" and is the "daughter of the Sun".  I know, it's not much.  But, the fact that Dario is willing to call Latin America a daughter speaks a lot about the importance he attributes to women's roles in Latin American society.  I really don't know a ton about this subject and I'm only going off what I've read for this class.  So, I'd like to pose a question to anyone who reads this: in your opinion, who is more open to feminism in the early 20th century, Latin America or The United States?
     

Some Modern Propaganda

      This last week I've seen a lot of the Olympics, as I'm sure all of you have as well.  Even if you haven't turned on your TV, it's pretty hard to avoid all the coverage on Facebook, Twitter, newspapers, etc.  But a lot of the attention the Olympics has been getting is pretty distorted.  In fact, I think the media has been putting out some modern propaganda, like Roosevelt's speech in Chicago.
First off, let my say that I enjoy the Olympics mainly because I like all kinds of sports.  It is really something special to see the best athletes in the world competing against each other.  For me, the best part of the Olympics is being a part of a story, hearing about everything the athletes have gone through, all culminating into one massive moment.  It's hard not to care.  To me, that's what the Olympics are really about.
Unfortunately, the Olympics have gotten away from that.  They aren't just a competition for the world's best athletes anymore.  They are a battleground for nationality.  NBC and other media have turned the Olympics into a mock-war, and we're all buying into the propaganda.
First-off, let's look at all the complaining that's been going on about the host-ctiy, Sochi.  This is what everyone seems to be talking about anyways, so it will be a good place to start.  Twitter has been buzzing with talk of how unprepared the city of Sochi was for the Olympics after a few journalists tweeted the following pictures:  there was the brown hotel water, the uncovered man-hole, and the sign that says they are supposed to throw used toilet paper in the trash next to the toilet rather than flush it.
I understand that some of these things are kinda gross.  I get it.  Sochi is not Paris.  But out of all the things the Olympics has to offer, the people, the stories, and they choose to talk about the dirty water?  I realized that something else is going on.  The media is trying to get people interested.   They're digging up controversy, creating it even, to try and get more people to care.  Like Roosevelt talking about Latin America, the media is choosing to talk about all of the bad, and none of the good.
Want another example?  See what the major networks have to say about the Olympics.  Notice that they keep talking about the possibility of a terrorist attack?  Okay, so Russia is a hostile country, and they've had problems in the past, to say the least.  I get that.  But why do they keep bringing it up?   Because controversy means viewership.  It doesn't do anyone any good to keep mentioning the threat of terrorism.  In fact, it probably makes it worse.  But NBC doesn't care, as long as you keep buying into it.
They're making Russia look like a terrible place to get us interested in the Olympics.  They're hinting at the Cold War, stirring up arbitrary emotions.  They're making Russia's president Putin look like an evil dictator. They're feeding us propaganda the same way Teddy Roosevelt fed it to the people of Chicago.  The difference is that Roosevelt wanted Americans support imperialism, while the media just wants to raise viewership.  They're saying, "You don't want the bad guys to win, right?  Better go cheer on the US so those dirty, scary Russians don't take home all the gold."
People need to get their heads on straight.  The Olympics are about the athletes and the competition.  It's not about how nice the hotel was that a journalist stayed at.  It's not a war.  It's not about politics, either.
Ironically, the US President is the one who put things into perspective when he said this about all the negative attention surrounding Putin:
"We tend to have pretty blunt conversations," said Obama about meetings with Putin, later adding: "He does have a public style where he likes to sit back and look a little bored during the course of joint interviews. I think that’s where some of these perceptions come up. My sense is that’s part of his shtick back home politically as wanting to look like the tough guy. U.S. politicians have a different style. We tend to smile once in a while." (interview w/Bob Costas on NBC)
What is Obama really saying?  It's all about perceptions.  I'm sure if the Olympics were in Grand Rapids, some Russian journalists could find some pretty gross hotels, and some brown water, and all of the Mcdonalds we have, and make it look pretty bad over here, too.   They could show Obama's face when he makes those goofy smiles, and convince the Russians we have an idiot for our President.  The real losers here are the people who believe what they're told.  It's all about perceptions.
You can listen to what people on Twitter are saying, or think what NBC wants you to think, or you can just watch the Olympics for yourself.   I have.  Sochi looks pretty beautiful to me.  The athletes are fine, and the competition is fierce and very enjoyable.  

  

Reaction to Rebecca's Post

Rebecca- thanks for pointing that out about Cecilia. She is actually pretty complex. When I first read Cecilia Valdes, I didn't notice a lot of things about her character.
Specifically, I didn't understand that Villaverde was ultimately portraying her as sinful and deceitful. Obviously I could tell by her actions that she was mischievous and didn't like to listen to authority. However, I took this to be a more natural thing that children without parents might be inclined to to. I did not really think Cecilia had actual malice.It was not until the second part of our reading, when Villaverde talked of her "voluptuousness rather than strength of character" that I realized Cecilia was bad news. And of course, your analysis of Cecilia's eagerness to dismiss her own race, and willingness to place her own interests before her friend's and grandmother's may be the best evidence of that. But then again, Cecilia was thrust into some tough circumstances, without real parents, in a pretty messed-up society. I think it would be a pretty good debate whether or not some of the things she does are justified.

Reaction to Alexis' post #3

I really like your post too Alexis. I've been thinking of these same kinds of questions as we've read about Sarmiento and his desire to civilize Argentina. I think the best part of your post is that you've connected it with our world today. 
We're still trying to tell people what to think, say, and do all the time. Everyone's out there telling each other how they should feel via Twitter or Facebook. It's more subtle than it used to be. People aren't waving swords in each other's faces saying they have to pledge loyalty to their country or their religion or they will be killed. But, I think it's out there more than ever, and a lot of people don't even realize it. 
The worst part about it is that people are afraid to accept differences. And I mean really, really accept. As a nation we're very conscious about being Politically Correct. We make sure to call black people African American and we tell teachers they can't bring their religion or their politics into the public classroom. But being politically correct isn't the same as accepting. In fact, it makes the problem worse. People try and shelter their thoughts, like they aren't supposed to share them with other people. They live through their idols because they're too afraid to be real with everyone. We're not accepting, we're just hiding. We still have a long way to go. 
Fortunately, I think people are beginning to see this. Our world is becoming more and more connected. Some of us are embracing new ideas and cultures everyday. That's exactly why Macklemore won so many Grammy's the other night and why he won best album. He's not the best rapper, but he embraces differences and he's not afraid to say it like it is. Here's some lyrics from his song "same love" to tie it all together. 
"Playing God, aw nah here we go
America the brave still fears what we don't know.
We press play, don't press pause
Progress, march on
With the veil over our eyes
We turn our back on the cause
No law is gonna change us
We have to change us
Whatever God you believe in
We come from the same one
Strip away the fear
Underneath it's all the same love"

A Fresh Punch on Civilization Vs. Barbarism

In the reading last week, Sarmiento described Argentinian society as being split in half.  The gauchos were the front-runners of the "Barbarians" and the white elites were the front-runners of civilization. In this post, I'm going to make a modern-day comparison to this societal struggle.  When I first read Sarmiento, I wasn't very quick to pick up on the fact that Sarmiento was a white elite who had personal bias on the matter.  After reading both chapters it became apparent that Sarmiento was a white elite, he had been to Europe, and what's more, he had political aspirations as well- as he would one day become President of Argentina.  I realized that Sarmiento wasn't just making a comment on the state of Argentina's nationhood because he was just a concerned citizen.
Sarmiento played his part well.  He clearly stated his position on the matter as if it were completely factual, divine and natural.  It was very convincing, but a big part of me knew that Sarmiento wasn't completely right.  I even pointed out in my last post that the whole idea of a nation wasn't everything it was supposed to be and would eventually lead to terrible things. Sarmiento was definitely wrong in that regard.  I ended my post by suggesting that perhaps those men who are sort of "rough around the edges" should be left to lead their cattle because they certainly aren't fit to lead men.
This is exactly where I want to pick up.  This week I watched a movie called Fight Club.  You may have heard of it- some of you may have seen it.  But i'm not here to recommend the movie to anyone.  It's not a Disney movie.  To put it plainly, Fight Club is rude.  It's supposed to be.
Some people call Fight Club a guys movie.  For one, people shouldn't label movies based on gender stereotypes. But even more importantly, Fight Club is much more than a "guys movie" with guns and explosions and fast cars.  Fight Club is truly a commentary on society.  It is a wake-up call.
In the movie, an unnamed man, frustrated with his dull desk-job, TV-dinner, lonely lifestyle, decides to take action on his life and creates a fight club.  Eventually, all sorts of guys, all frustrated by the system of society, begin to meet each week to release their pent-up frustrations, boredom, sadness, and lack-of freedom by getting beat to a pulp.  These men are like the gauchos of Argentina with no horses and no open fields to run on.  Without those freedoms, the men slowly begin to die as they sit in their offices, filing away papers and buying new dining room sets off the internet.  Many of these guys are living what others might call "The American Dream" and yet they are some of the most unhappy people in the world.
Unfortunately. I believe there is a lot of truth to this representation of modern society.  We convince ourselves we need that new t-shirt, or that new oven, or that we care about our job approving (or more likely not approving) loans.  We're just like the "civilized" people of Argentina who believed that they needed steamboats and railroads and industry and European fashion.  They were just the beginning.
The men in Fight Club eventually take their Fight Club idea too far.  I don't want to give away much detail other than that.  But, I think that you can understand that the main idea of the movie was to point out the negative effects our societal structure and our obsession with consumerism have on the people.
Fight Club goes to show that the Civilization Vs. Barbarism theme hasn't gone away.  Some of us are still fighting it today.  It's why we play football.  It's why people climb mountains and jump out of airplanes.  It's why some people choose not to go to college.  People can't just always be so civil all the time.  The frustration builds up.  It wears you down and puts crazy ideas into your head.  That's what I meant when I said that rough guys like the gauchos should lead cattle and not men.  If you force them into a society they don't fit into, the results won't be good.
That's what happened in Fight Club.  The main character hated his shallow, meaningless life so much that he had gone crazy, inventing a new personality for himself and starting a cult that would eventually go on to do some spectacularly horrible things.  He wasn't born crazy.  He became crazy when he realized that no matter how many clothes he bought or how big his apartment was he was never happy.  You really can't blame the guy.  Thousands of other men felt the same way he did and followed him to the grave.    
I think that something similar to this really does happen to people as a result of our "civilized society".  To further a previous example, this is what may have happened with Hitler.  People thought that Germany needed to become a strong nation with a big army and a pure people, in a similar way to how people thought Argentina needed to become "civilized" like Europe, and also similar to how people today believe all the ads on TV.  Hitler simply had a powerful voice that could be extremely convincing.   Like the main character of Fight Club, Hitler got others to follow him, and with the words of people like Sarmiento, he was able to disguise his misguided aggression as Nationalism, Imperialism and politics.
In the end, people realized Hitler was a mad-man, just as viewers of Fight Club realize that the main character is a multi-personality psychopath.  The movie isn't about a hero.  It's about the villain.  The one called society.  The Nation.  The thing that Sarmiento so eloquently convinced everyone we needed.
With Fight Club and the Holocaust as evidence, the struggle of Civilization Vs. Barbarism within the Nation has never gone away.
I wish that people like Sarmiento would stop writing books trying to eradicate it.  His essay was wrong in a lot of ways, but we should know that, considering his motives.  People will never fully lose their wild side, and forcing them to will only make things worse.  The fight is internal as well as external.
That's all for now.  If you've made it this far, congratulations and thank you for reading the whole thing.  Oh and side note- If you can't already tell I love Fight Club, it's an awesome movie, but my point was that I wouldn't recommend it to just anyone.  Here's a quote from the movie.  You stay classy, Honors 280.

"Man, I see in fight club the strongest and smartest men who've ever lived. I see all this potential, and I see squandering. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables; slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our Great War's a spiritual war... our Great Depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars. But we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."   -Tyler Durden

My Reaction to Emily's Post #2

Emily-
It's been a couple years since I've watched it, but I too was a big fan of Lost. I think you've made a really interesting comparison. 
In the beginning, the Others leave the crash survivors alone for awhile. The survivors don't even know the Others exist. This is similar to Sarmiento's description of the relations between the elites and the gauchos: they want nothing to do with each other, like two separate societies. 
Eventually, the others, with their vision of how they want the island to work, begin to manipulate the survivors. (like you said)
I think the biggest difference would be that in Lost, the survivors just want to leave the island and find a way home, while the gauchos/poor folk are defending their homes as well as their way of life.

Hello everyone.   Last week while we were discussing nation-building, I realized that I had been making a very blind (and inaccurate) assumption about the concept of a nation.  Before I tell you what that assumption was, let me give you a little background information.
Like most American kids, I was taught from a young age that we live in a great, powerful, advanced country with a government and society based on freedom and equality.  Ever since I can remember the patriotic messages have been instilled in my brain. We were taught to be proud of where we lived and to consider ourselves lucky.  Some people say that America is the best country in the world.
And I'll admit, sometimes I've subscribed to that.. sentiment.  It feels good to be a part of something big and important.  It's comforting to know that you have something in common with every single person living on the southern half of North America.  I've never been a politics guy but I've always loved my country and what it stands for.  And after all, what would the Olympics be without national pride?
So, when we started discussing nation-building, the assumption that I had been making was that 'the nation' was a good thing.  Like Sarmiento, I would have looked at Argentina and said, "alright guys, it's time we get our shit together.  Look at this picture I drew of Paris.  LOOK AT IT!  They have shops, and roads, and government, and art, and music, and romance!  And what do we have?  A bunch of dudes riding horses!"
At first, nation-building sounds like a great improvement.
But when i really thought about the "criteria" for becoming a nation, and considered some of the less-obvious consequences, my whole mindset was completely turned upside down.  I began to question everything I had previously thought about being a nation.   Let me show you what I mean.
According to Burn's 'criteria' this is the best example of the ideal nation:

Think about it.  Nazi Germany had impressive military power (to defend their borders, of course).  They also had an unprecedented sense of national culture.
At first, people saw Nazi Germany and said, wow, what a nation!  What a nation, indeed.  Millions were slaughtered because of that nation.  World wars were started because of that nation.  And for what?
Now, I know that Nazi Germany is an unfair example.  Most nations aren't like Nazi Germany.
But I guess my point is that, under the surface, the nation really isn't all that it's cracked up to be.  I had been making the assumption that 'becoming a nation' was the right answer, the only answer.  Now, I'm not so sure.
Sarmiento, even with all of his criticism of their lifestyle, recognized that the gauchos were happy.  They liked their style of living.  They liked to play rough.
Perhaps Argentina never should have became a nation.  Maybe we shouldn't have any nations at all.  Maybe those guys who were a bit 'rough around the edges' and full of pride should have been left alone to tend to their cattle.  It's a lot better to have a crazy man leading a herd of cows than to have him lead people.
That is all for now.  Good night, and good luck.  You stay classy, Honors 280.

Introduction

I'm Lucas Gerard and this is my blog.  I just decided that I'm going to be very blunt when I write this blog.  I won't sugarcoat anything and I won't be afraid to express my true thoughts.  This is my page, and I wasn't born in the Midwest, so you won't find any of that submissive, apologetic attitude here.  For example- I actually enjoy writing sometimes, but I never considered writing a blog because I always thought they were for lonely people who needed a place to rant.  Well, here goes nothing.

So, answering the question; why did you choose to study Latin American Civilization, I have to admit, I chose the class because there wasn't much else open.  I was very late in deciding to come to Grand Valley because I was waiting to hear back from another school.  Professor Serrata and Professor Stark, I'm sorry, but I must say this class was not my first choice.  I'm going into business, I'm not taking any Spanish and I don't really enjoy history.  

Having said all that, I do have something positive to say, I promise.  I actually think this is a great class, despite my apparent lack of enthusiasm.  I don't like listening to history lectures but I understand the value of history.  I'm not taking Spanish in college right now, but I took four years of Spanish in high school and have a desire to study abroad in a Spanish speaking country.  I have learned a ton already.  Finally, I think this class offers a lot of skills that can be used in a multitude of different settings.

Sorry for ranting, everyone.  You stay classy, Honors 280.