- I learned the extent to which things can go wrong. I went to sleep last night having set my alarm for 7:30 thinking my exam was at 9:00, I plugged in my phone to charge and went to sleep. I woke up to my roommate coming into my room telling me that my exam had already started. My charger had fallen out of my phone and my phone ran out of power.
- I learned that I’m actually a halfway decent writer if I’m able to focus on what I’m doing. This class was a pretty good confidence booster when it came to me understanding my writing capabilities.
- I also learned how to read types of text that are difficult for me like legal documents and speeches. I also learned how to analyse historical documents as well as actual historical events to reach a conclusion.
I’m not really sure what to right for this response, mostly because the Wikipedia article is only 3 sentences long. Basically if I even add one source to the article it would already be a big improvement. I’m honestly surprised that the article isn’t considered a stub. But I already have found some articles to use.
It seems, at least to me, that everything in the article is relevant to the topic. However, because of the way I think, a lot of things that most people would say aren’t related to a topic, I think are. The majority of the article is neutral, however, I noticed that some parts of the article appeared to be opinionated. Sometimes, authors would refer to the coup as undiplomatic, even though this idea could be argued. Also, due to the nature of the event and its modernity, unbiased references are hard to find. The different viewpoints present seem to be equally represented, however, I feel that there is too much focus on the legality of the ousting as opposed to the aftermath and causes of the coup. The links to the references seem to work, however, I noticed that some of the references were from sources like Yahoo Ask and opinionated news articles. When the authors do use biased articles they usually write “According to” or something like that, however, I noticed one particular moment when that wasn’t done. I think there is some information that is out of date. When the article talks about the human rights violations and specifically the curfew, it says that the curfew is still ongoing. However, I’m pretty sure I remember the curfews stopping and the reference is from 2009. The article is missing the part where Melzelaya “loses” money for the education fund which may be considered conspiracy, but that was the general consensus of the people my family was around. When looking at the Talk section there is discussion over the addition of a conspiracy about U.S involvement in the coup. The discussion seems pretty argumentative to me with people being pretty snarky. The conclusion that seems to be reached is that the conspiracy should be mentioned but in a way that frames it as an event and not speculative. The article is part of three wikiprojects, Politics, Honduras, and Military History. It is rated in importance as mid for Politics, high for Honduras, and no importance for Military History. The quality rating for Politics is B-class, for Honduras it is B-class, and for Military History it is C-class.
We start off class today with Prof. Holt asking the class about our weekends and making a comment about the party on the green; mentioning how Wooster is a small town and it’s not hard to hear things. Prof. Holt then goes on to talk about the email she sent the class for signing up to wikipedia. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:CreateAccount that included a link to join the class wiki) She asks if anybody had any advice for creating a wikipedia account and the general advice is to keep the username appropriate. Then Prof. Holt talked about how she uses her own name and believes that it is her obligation to not hide behind an anonymous name. She talks about how one student had issues changing the David Ortega KH: David Ortiz page because it is so disputed. Then we move onto questions about the primary source paper, and one of the questions is about a cover page/ word count and word count can be in the heading and cover page is optional. Then someone asked about how to cite the primary source from Wasserman’s book and Prof. Holt showed us this website (https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/chicago_manual_17th_edition/cmos_formatting_and_style_guide/books.html.) Then Prof. Holt reminded the class about the history lecture on 09/10/19.
Dani begins LA in the News with an article titled Mexico Says It Has Cut the Number of Migrants Heading to the U.S. Dani tells the class that Mexico has sent members of the National Guard and police officers to the border to reduce the migrants heading to the U.S. When it comes to why Mexico decided to do this, it is because of Trump’s threats to impose tariffs on imports from Mexico. Andrez Lopez, the president of Mexico, is facing criticism because of this decision partly because it is unethical and partly because it makes Mexico look like the U.S’s puppet. This decision also places migrants in danger, and Mexico has failed to meet their promise to return migrants to their homeland. Dani relates this article to one of the five criteria for a revolution which is tolerant world context. She wonders about the difference between the treatment of migrants in northern vs. southern Mexico because South Mexico is basically part of Central America.
Prof. Holt Another student suggested that migrants would probably be treated better in South Mexico.
Now the class begins in earnest. Prof. Holt puts up three questions: What were the key changes made in the 1917 Constitution? How well do changes to Agrarian Policy reflect Zapata and Villa’s goals? Those of Madero? How revolutionary are the changes and what criteria are used to define “revolutionary?” Here we have two key terms, 1917 Constitution and The Agrarian Law. The 1917 Constitution was the new constitution for Mexico after the revolution and was actually written during the revolution. The Agrarian Law (1915) was written by Victoriano Carranza and talks about the ownership of land with regards to villages. Prof. Holt asked the class what we thought about the Constitution and some notable things were the legal terms, the fact that a Constitution has multiple authors, when and why the constitution was written and about the workers’ rights shown in the Constitution.
Then we split into groups and begin discussion. My group talked about how the nation had the right to whatever land it wanted, as well as the nation’s right to give out private land. We talked about how depending on your perspective Zapata may have actually liked some of the land changes. When we discussed how revolutionary the changes were we realized that it depended on your perspective. From a U.S perspective, the changes weren’t particularly revolutionary but, when compared to the previous system, the changes were drastic. It went from unregulated to well-regulated. For question 2 we didn’t have very much to say, the changes were pretty revolutionary and we all liked them and we thought it was kind of funny how the Constitution that was written in the middle of a revolution allowed for unionization. The group ended with Prof. Holt gaining our attention. She asked the class about different evaluations about what we read and some key points are that the language was very technical, there was a juxtaposition between maternity leave in the U.S and everywhere else in the world. Additionally, we also talked about the vaguely defined land, and the anticlerical sentiment during the revolution as well as how the compensation for land could be easily corrupted. We ended class with Prof. Holt telling us about what we would be doing on Wednesday and dismissing us.
What is one way in which the more educated people in history have tricked less educated people with complex terms and sentence structures?
From a Latin American perspective, how does the difference in culture from the North to the South of Mexico affect their views on motherhood?
How can revolutionary leaders use language as an effective propaganda tool?
In Honduras, large numbers of postpartum mothers have been forced to sleep on the floors in the General South Hospital. According to the article, “la falta de espacio en el albergue materno que tiene el Hospital General del Sur obliga a puérperas a tener que dormir en el suelo.”(El Heraldo)
The area for postpartum mothers to stay with their babies only has seven beds, however the weekly influx of mothers is around 20. KH Note: Small clarification, not to take away from the difficult conditions these Honduran mothers face: the article says that while there about 20 newborns admitted to the neonatal center at the hospital each week, the hospital only has seven beds available for mothers who want to sleep at the hospital to care for and breast feed their infants. Now it is obvious that there is an issue. In the article, two mothers share their experience with the hospital one named “Maria” and the other “Carmen.” Both mothers got the all clear to leave the hospital, however were shocked to hear that their children had to be moved to a separate location due to complications. They had to sleep on the floor because they were worried about their babies and needed to be there for them, “Carmen” even had a C-Section and was forced to sleep on the ground. This event wasn’t only limited to these two women, this kind of thing happens all the time all over Honduras.
El Heraldo asked the directors of the hospital what they would do about the lack of space, and the hospital assures the public that they are doing things to increase the space in the maternity ward.
This article is by a Latin American newspaper for a Latin American audience, however, if more people were to see this then the portrayal would not be very good. It shows a lot of the issues that Honduras has and why it has one of the largest wealth inequalities in the world.
Honduras experienced its own “revolution” in 2009 when there was a coup d’etat against the president Manuel Zelaya. The after effects of the revolution are still felt today as partly evidenced by this occurrence. Mel, during his administration, lost large sums of money that were meant for the educational fund. Teachers went on strike for a large period of time (I actually remember this.)