Book Review: The General in His Labyrinth

Simon Bolivar was an important figure in South America that changed the way people thought about independence. Bolivar was born in Venezuela in 1783 and died in 1830. He was known as "El Liberador" in Spanish, which translates to, The Liberator. He was one man who really made it possible for Latin America to become independent. It was mostly in South America though. He liberated Most of South America from the Spanish Empire. Then he became president of several countries in South America. He was one great leader who is always remembered, but when we really think about him, we are not sure what things he had to do or go through to give so much for his people. Some people may wonder what his life was like, or what it was like to set people free. What was it like to be him and to do the things he did?

Well, Colombian writer, Gabriel Garcia Marquez writes about Simon Bolivar's life in his book The General in His Labyrinth. Simon Bolivar is the main character in this book. At the beginning of the book, in the first chapter, Simon Bolivar is introduced as an unhealthy man. He is 46 years old and he is preparing to go on a journey to Europe, but his sickness does not leave him alone making things hard for him. During his voyage, which takes weeks, to Europe, he is really sick. One of the reasons he wanted to leave The Americas was because in his own land, people he, himself liberated started to turn against him. Some wanted to kill him because they did not like him as a leader after the Spanish left. So that is why he wanted to leave.

They accused him of wanting to be president for life so he could appoint an European prince as his successor. They accused him of pretending to travel abroad when in reality he was going to the Venezuelan border and planned to return at the head of the insurgent troops in order to seize power, (p.13).

This shows what the people in Colombia thought the reason he wanted to leave. In reality, he did not want any of that that the people thought.  Bolivar was hated by people, but loved when was setting them free. People betrayed him. Him being sick just made it easier for people not to recognize him as a hero. His sickness and illness just made him seem weak. That is how people saw him.

I don't think many people now know what this Latin American hero went through. All the hate, and the negativity. They only see him as an idol and i am sure that no one thinks that part of his life was a struggle. That is the untold story that is left out. He is so important that a country was named after him; the nation of Bolivia. Now that i know more about him, and his life, i start to think about all the sacrifices he made, and that thanks to him the world is now different.

The cycle of daughters and mothers

Mothers influence their daughters to become like them when their daughters grow up, but they don't always do it directly. Sometimes they kind of force their daughters to do whatever they think their daughters should do, in other words, they make the decisions for their daughters so that when they are older, they are shaped similar to them.

In the short stories from The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan, The mothers in most of the stories treat their daughters in a very similar way. They make their daughters do things that they want them to do and not actually what the daughters want to do.

I think that this is a big part of the Chinese culture, and i also think that it could be part of other cultures around the world but the Chinese are the ones that show it the most.

In the story Rules of The Game, Waverly Jong is the daughter of a mother who tells her what to do, what is according to her what will make Waverly a successful person. Waverly learns by herself that she is good at something; playing chess. She slowly starts to show the people around her the big talent she has. Once her mother sees that her daughter is doing something with her life by herself, she interferes and starts pressuring her daughter to work harder on her chess skills, which just makes it hard for Waverly to be able to do good.

 As her men drew closer to my edge, i felt myself growing light. I rose up into the air and flew out the window. Higher and higher, above the alley, over the tops of tiled roofs, where i was gathered up by the wind and pushed up toward the night sky until everything below me disappeared and i was alone. (pg. 101)

Eventually, her mother caused Waverly to quit chess. Her mother was just trying to help her with her pushing, but Waverly could not take it. This mother was trying to make her daughter be what she wanted her to be and did not let her deal with her dream independently causing her to quit what she was so good at.

One of the main characters, Suyuan Woo who died from a brain aneurysm years after she moved from China and lived in the US. She created the Joy Luck Club, and she got a group of women to join her (They were Chinese too). After her death, the other women that formed part of the Joy Luck Club saw Jing-Mei Woo as the next leader of the group. They kind of expected her to continue what her mother had started.

'You are responsible', said my mother. (pg. 28)

This doesn't show how the women from the club wanted her to replace her m,other, but that does show how the mother, Suyuan, talked to Jing-Mei, telling her that she is responsible. This kind of shows that her mom considers her or could consider her responsible for whatever she leaves behind when she dies, in this case the club.

Mothers influence their daughters in life, they want them to turn out a certain way, but they pick the way they'll turn out and the daughters are dependent on doing things from their mothers.

Mothers and their daughters

The story, "Rules of the game" from the book The Joy Luck Club by Amy Tan relates to the article written by Amy Chua: "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior". In Chua's piece, she focuses on telling the audience about what the lives of many Chinese children look like in comparison of those of, for example, western kids (Americans).
In Rules of the game, Waverly is a Chinese girl who has two brothers who are treated similarly to what Chua said kids in China are treated like. Chua focuses a lot on how the parents want their children to be successful in school in specific. In The Rules of the Game, Waverly's mother does not focus on her daughter's education though. One Christmas, Vincent, Waverly's brother  received a chess set from the church. Waverly became addicted to the idea of playing chess and when she learned how to play, she went started going out with people she didn't know and playing chess and as she did that, her sills improved.
One day, her mother realized that her daughter had a real talent; playing chess. So she signed her up for a tournament first and after she won that, she signed her up for more. She started as a local champion and ended up being a national champion. Her mother then became a real proud mother and this idea came to her, to only make her daughter practice chess and to forget about everything else. Her mother kind of forced her to improve, as she wanted her to because she wanted her daughter to keep winning so she could be proud and to kind of show off her daughter to others.

I went to school, then directly home to learn new chess secrets... But i found it difficult to concentrate at home. My mother had a habit of standing over me while i plotted out my games. I think she thought of herself as a protective ally. Her lips would be sealed tight, and after each move i made, a soft 'Hmmmmph' would scape from her mouth. 

Chua talks about a similar idea. The idea of education. Instead of education, Waverly's mother forces her to learn more chess than her studies. Its also like playing the piano and violin only.  This can be seen as one of those instruments.
I do think that Amy Tan's novel endorses Chua's arguments about motherhood.

The best parents

I think that in the article "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior" by Amy Chua, she makes too many assumptions about Chinese mothers in comparison with western parents. Amy Chua says:

First, I've noticed that Western parents are extremely anxious about their children's self-esteem. They worry about how their children will feel if they fail at something, and they constantly try to reassure their children about how good they are notwithstanding a mediocre performance on a test or at a recital. In other words, Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't. They assume strength, not fragility, and as a result they behave very differently.

She talks about how Chinese mothers kind of overreact with the actions of their children and western parents do not really mind. I do not completely agrree with that  because i think that not all parents are the same or act the same.
The parent's relationship with their children is strict in the Chinese side. The kid obeys the parents and the kid basically does not have an opinion over what happens, or cannot make important decisions about education or other important stuff. The life of a kid who has a Chinese mother seems much harder than the life of a kid who has a western parent. The Chinese kid has more obligations as described in the article. Kids with Chinese mothers have to really be good in general and seem to have much more pressure than other kids such as American.
American kids on the other hand, who have western parents they are less pressured in almost everything. They do not really have those high expectations that the Chinese kids have. When they get low grades, they are not really pushed by their parents to do better. I know that she is talking about her own family in comparison with the western families, but she kind of make it seem like a comparison of the two general groups.
She makes the point that the two groups are different in the way they teach their children and the relationship they have with their children. I thimk it all depends on culture. There are different views of supporting children in diffeent places and people usually do what they believe is best. If Chinese mothers want to force their children to be successful, i think that is fine, and if a western parent wants their children to try just as hard as they can and not relly support them, then that is fine too.
About the argument about what parents and children owe each other, i think that parents should not really put that much pressure on their children and that the response from the children shlould be respect and efffot.

Rebelling for a reason

Through out history, people have rebelled against their leaders for different reasons. In the last 5 years i have heard about some type of rebellion or revolution in different countries around the world. Right now, the revolution in Egypt is the one that has been most know to people around the world and The United States mainly.
The main connection that i see between what is happening in Egypt and what happened in George Orwell's Animal Farm is that here is only one kind of leader. In Egypt Mubarak has been the leader of the country more than anyone else ever has. He cheats to be the leader over and over and to never be removed out of power. That is not necessarily what happened in Animal Farm but i think that the same idea can be built. Animal Farm had different leaders, but the thing was that they were all pigs and it was never a horse or a donkey, or any other animal that formed part of the farm. I think that having one leader  for a really long time is almost the same as having different leaders that can or could be the same. Even though Major might not have been like Napoleon it was still unfair to have alike leaders having the control. I think that in Animal Farm it was an injustice just to let the pigs be leaders. It would be the same as if a man just like Mubarak became leader after Mubarak and after that man another one like him.
In other cases such as what happened in Honduras in the summer of 2009 also connect to Animal Farm. In Honduras, the ex-president Manuel Zelaya tried changing the constitution of the country so that he could do the same Mubarak did and be reelected  every time. He also took advantage of his power treating the people of the country unfairly. In animal farm, Napoleon and the pigs kept changing the constitution in their favor and also took advantage of their power by making all the animals work so they did not have to do anything.
Changing the rules is unfair, and when someone changes the rules against the people, the people respond by rebelling so that their voices are heard.

Leaders and Corruption

I think that political power is seen and used different by different people. It really depends on who the person with power is to determine how they will use that power. I believe that if someone with a corrupt mind has a lot of power, that person will use their mind to do bad things and use the power in a bad and unfair way. Power is much like an addiction.I think of power as money. Money is something that when it is unlimited, it becomes addictive to get and to use. On the other hand, if a person with a great and humble mind, like the president of The United States Obama, they would most likely use the power for good. Just like i believe he is right now.
I think that people who use power for corruption are selfish people, they only of themselves and what everyone else thinks does not matter to them. I think that power is a very easy thing to become addicted to, and i have heard of people who seem to be good but once they gain power, they change to evil people. Power is really strong and can change people.
I think that George Orwell would agree with me, i think that he would say that it depends on who the person with power is. I have not finished the book, but from what i have read so far, i think that the different leaders have different ways of using power, some use it for the benefit of the whole farm and some do not.
Political power is a big thing in America, and all around the world; people want good leaders who know how to use politcal power correctly, at least that is what i would want.