Burn!

Journal Entry #_
"Burn!" (Grossmont Library code #4701) - Preface and Discussion Questions

See all of your readings as reference!  Especially those that go with the topic: “Imperial Expansion and the Export Age”  See also the Contreras article on “U.S. Policy Toward Latin America” up the section on Guatemala.

The film “Burn!” (“Queimada!” in its original Portuguese) is one of the few films that deals with the plight of Latin America from its colonial origins to the multi-faceted problems they would be faced with as full fledged nations in the 19^th century (and indeed issues that remain relevant into the 21^st).  It is set in the fictitious island of “Queimada” in the Caribbean from the end of the colonial period to the “long” 19^th century.  In each case, you will answer the questions as they relate to the story in the film, but more importantly, you will try to transcend the film’s story to talk about how the following issues manifest themselves in “real life”.  I.e. in the real Cuba, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua… and their relationship with the United States, for example.

• Among the issues/questions that the film addresses and that you are watching out for are:
• Race/ethnicity
• Issues of class (landowning aristocracy, landless plantation workers, etc…) and how they fall along racial and ethnic lines
• The development of the economy of the region- a nation's relationship to the world.   “Dependency”
• Independence vs. Revolutions
• Reform vs. Revolutions (gradual vs. fundamental change)
• Does economic growth equal development?
• The social consequences of modernization (recall Burns’ “The Poverty of Progress”)
• Imperialism and the ensuing National Liberation struggles that it unleashes
• Multinational corporations- their economic and political role.
• The emerging relationships between the “Third World” and the “First World”.  i.e. Developing nations and Developed nations.  (Though its “Queimadan”/English relations in the film, those same issues manifest themselves throughout the U.S./Latin America relationship.  Think about Cuba and the United States, Nicaragua and the United States…)

Characters:

• Sir William Walker- represents the English crown.  He comes to the island to instigate an uprising on Queimada so England can tap into the sugar market.  England wants part of the Queimadan sugar trade and to sell it its manufactured goods.   After, Queimada’s independence, England will be Queimada’s largest investor.  See the section on English (early 19^th century) , then U.S. (latter 19^th and early 20^th centuries) conquest of Latin American markets,  as a source of raw materials and as a source for capital investment.
  • There was a “real” William Walker.  He was an American who led a filibustering expedition to Nicaragua in the late 19^th century.
  • Symbolizes British conquest of Latin American markets (bankers, manufacturers) and as a source of raw materials and capital investment.
  • Also, Economic penetration of Latin America first by England, then by the United States.  Not necessarily by military conquest (though often that will be the case) but by establishing hegemony, that is setting up and managing the rules of the game (see my lecture notes, my article, and Shoultz).

• Teddy Sanchez- The Liberal reformer who is ultimately helpless; believes in “idealistic motives”   Sanchez represents Reformers who have the well being of the population in mind (i.e., better salaries and better working conditions) but want to work within the system to change it.  That is, keeping the basic structures of society in place while working to improve the lot of the masses.  Pontecorvo (the filmmaker) would say someone who wants to “tinker with the system”

                Historical example: Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala in the 1950’s.

• Jose Dolores – “nationalist” rebel; becomes the “revolutionary” who wants to completely change the economic, social, and political structures of society.  Jose Dolores, represents Revolutionaries who also want to improve the lot of the masses but argue that the system can’t be “tinkered with”.  They argue that the entire economic, political, and consequently, the social order, must be destroyed and replaced with something entirely new.  They argue for fundamental change such as:
  • expropriation of haciendas and plantations and its redistribution to the landless.
  • breaking the concentration of political power that is in the hands of the few (“radical democracy”)

                Historical examples:  Augusto Cesar Sandino in Nicaragua in the 1920’s,
                Fidel Castro and “Che” Guevara in Cuba in the 1950’s and 60’s.

• Gen. Prada- Portuguese plantation owner; participates in Independence movement.  Becomes Minister of Defense under Pres. Sanchez.
  • Becomes provisional president after arresting Sanchez
  • coup d’etat (a “military coup”) to secure status quo (the way things are [or were])
  • Military in politics the behest of or with support of elite and foreign investors

• Mr. Shelton- First English merchant, becomes plantation owner; then attorney to Royal Sugar.

• Antilles Royal Sugar Co.:  a multinational corporation modeled after the United Fruit Co.

Some terms:

Dependency: A situation in which the economy of certain countries is conditioned by the development and expansion of another economy to which the former is or becomes subject.  (Theotonio dos Santos)

Social Revolution:  Destruction of an old economic, social, and political system, and its replacement with a new one.

"Burn!" Discussion Questions for you to carefully consider and thoughtfully respond to

1)  What happened to the native people of the Caribbean island of Quiemada?  Who then “repopulates” the region?  Significance for Caribbean history?

2)  How are the different social classes of Queimada portrayed?  Significance for Caribbean history?

3)  What is the economic argument made by Sir William Walker for the emancipation of African slaves (why plantation owners would be better off freeing slaves)?

4)  What is the economic argument made by Walker to the plantation owners for the Independence of Queimada?

5)  Why do the plantation owners (nor England) not want "revolutions carried out to their extreme" as in Haiti? (Recall Toussaint L’Ouverture)

6)  Pontecorvo (the filmmaker) argues Teddy Sanchez is a “puppet” president.  Why is he acceptable as President to the landed elite?

7) What is the significance of this statement that Walker tells Jose Dolores:  “Who’ll govern your islands Jose?  Who’ll handle your commerce?  Cure your sick, or teach in your schools?  Civilization is not a simple matter…you cannot learn its secrets overnight”.   How does this relate to Latin America’s experience?

8)  After independence has been achieved, why is there a second round of rebellions on Queimada?

9) Marcino quotes José Dolores as saying:  "If what we have here is civilization... civilization of white men, then we are better off uncivilized, because, it is better to know where to go and not know how, than it is to know how to go and not know where"  What does José Dolores mean by this?  Historical parallels?

10)  Why does Walker say guerrillas can be 30 to 50 times more effective than soldiers?

11)   Why must the second round of rebellions be completely squashed (i.e. villages being uprooted and torched)? 

12)  You’ll notice the Army of Queimada consists of mainly black soldiers, why do you think this is so?  What does "revolution" mean for the black toiling masses?  What does it mean at the level of the individual?

13)  Why was the English army asked to "invade" Queimada?   Then, why do the Queimadan plantation owners cheer the “invasion” of their own country?

14)  What effect might the English invasion and the English decimation of the island have on young generations of disenfranchised folks?  Historical parallels to National Liberation Movements?

15)  When José Dolores is captured and brought into the army encampment, the soldiers there boo him and want to knock him off of his horse.  The soldiers bringing him down from the mountains, on the other hand, seem to shield him and protect him.  Why?

16)  In what ways is Queimada "dependent"?  What is its economic relationship to the rest of the world?  How does this change once it is "independent"?  Politically, who holds the domestic strings of power before independence?  Who holds them after Quiemada is independent? (See your “Dependency” chart)

17)  As Jose Dolores is going to be executed, why is Walker attempting to free him?  Why does José Dolores not leave when Walker tries to free him? 

18)  Near the end Dolores tells Walker:  “Remember what you said, “civilization belongs to whites”.  But, what civilization?  Until when?”  What does Dolores mean by this?

19)  In the end, what are the solutions that José Dolores sees for the problems of Queimada and other nations like it?  Historical parallels?

Questions to consider after watching the entire film:

20)  Gilo Pontecorvo, the filmmaker, portrays Teddy Sanchez as a liberal reformer.  Pontecorvo argues that liberal reformers are essentially well-meaning but ultimately destined to fail.  In what ways is Sanchez a liberal reformer?  In what ways is he destined to fail?  Do you agree with this assessment?  Why, or why not?

21)  In a similar vein, Pontecorvo portrays Dolores as a revolutionary.  He argues that revolutions are inevitable in countries saddled with a colonial legacy like Queimada was (a legacy of "dependent" development).  In what ways is Jose Dolores a revolutionary?  Why are revolutions inevitable?  What is the difference between reform and revolution?

22)  What is the role of England in the "development" of Queimada over time?  Parallels:  the United States in the Caribbean at the end of the 19^th century and early 20^th.  Tell me about them.

23)  How does the role of the Queimadan landowning elite change over time?  How is its role related to the role of England's?  Parallels:  the Latin American elite and their relationship with the United States.  Tell us about them.