Maria Is Cuba!!

I chose to write a biography of Maria from the first episode in the film, “I Am Cuba.”

Maria is a beautiful young woman that was born and raised in a small village located in the Republic of Cuba. Growing up as a little girl, the opportunity of education was not afforded to poor children in her village. Maria’s early childhood consisted of performing domestic duties, such as cleaning, laundry, and assisting with cooking. Due to the abundance of domestic work, there were little opportunities to enjoy a normal childhood.

Maria is the eldest of six children and bore the majority of the domestic workload. At the age of fifteen, her father, who was the family’s primary source of income, died and Maria was forced to supplement the family’s income through alternative means. Because of the lack of employment opportunities available, Maria was forced to work in a local brothel with many other girls between the ages of twelve and twenty-six. Although the money was not great, it assisted with the family’s survival in an otherwise deprived land. Maria continued to work in the local brothel until she reached the age of twenty-six; the age that is deemed to be too old and unappealing to the male population.

After leaving the brothels, Maria joined the Fidel Castro revolution to fight the problems that handicapped her country and its people. Maria fought hard for the rights to own land/property, education, employment, and health care. During this struggle, she witnessed several of her friends and family members become victims of Cuba’s society, which decapitated their dreams and hopes. Maria’s activeness within the revolution guaranteed her a place in Cuba’s history for liberation.

Currently, Maria still lives in Cuba with her husband, Rene, their three children, and twelve grandchildren. Although, Maria still serves as an advisor to the Castro administration, she has founded her own non-profit organization that sponsors adult education called “Cuba Cares.” Because change does make a difference, Maria has touched the lives of thousands for generations to come.

GABBY'S OFFICAL STORY

My name is Gabby Ibanez born in Argentina during the “dirty war.” Being the daughter of a successful business man and loving mother, I received an enormous amount of love as a child. I cannot remember any bad days during the primary years of my life. The memory of huge dolls and ponytails constantly invade my memory.

However, all of my dreams tumbled down when one day my mother and father separated and I lived shared time between two homes until I reach the age of eighteen. I was very fortunate to have two nannies; one at each home. Rosa still worked for my father and my nanny at my mother’s home was Sara. Up until I was eighteen, I never imaged a past outside of my home with Roberto and Alicia, my adoptive parents. However, on my eighteenth birthday, my mother told me about my adoption and the limited information she had regarding my birth parents. It was at this moment that my unknown past became my history.

My mother informed me that my nanny, Sara, was in fact my birth grandmother. Although confused and upset, I learned of my parents from Sara only to find many similarities between I and my mother. The resemblance between me and my parents were so pronounced that it was frightening.

I am now twenty-five years old and I currently live in Argentina with my adoptive parents and grandmother. I studied medicine at the Harvard School of Medicine and returned to Argentina to practice medicine. Roberto, Alicia, my adoptive grandparents and grandma Rosa are still very active in my life.

I have started my own foundation for locating missing families through medical records.

JUSTICE MISSING

Seeking justice for the Horman family and the deceased, Charles Horman. After the recent events that took place in Chile during the 1973 Chilean Coup, the Horman family wishes to file negligence against the U.S. Embassy officials in the tragic death of Charles Horman.

In 1973, American journalist Charles Horman and wife, Beth, was visiting Chile and writing on the events Chilean coup. During this period, local residents witnessed Charles Horman being taken from his apartment by Chilean military officials. Unable to locate her husband, Beth Horman filed the necessary paperwork with the U.S. Embassy regarding the illegal apprehension of her husband, Charles Horman. At this time, the U.S. Embassy denied all claims that Charles Horman was arrested by Chilean military officials and there would be an investigation regarding the whereabouts of Charles Horman. Shortly afterwards, Ed Horman arrived in Chile in search of his son; he too was assured by the U.S. Embassy that Charles Horman had not been arrested and was probably on his way back to the States. After weeks of searching and meeting with U.S. Embassy officials, Ed Horman were informed that his son was in fact murdered, although not said by whom.

Being the role of the U.S. Embassy to protect American citizens in foreign territories, such as Chile, we find the U.S. government negligent on the accounts of assisting in the abduction of Charles Horman, covering up the murder of Charles Horman, and tampering with evidence. These charges are very serious and should not be taken lightly by the justices of the Supreme Court.
1. On the account of assisting in the abduction of Charles Horman, the eleven U.S. Embassy officials allowed Chilean military officials to kidnap, torture, and murder several American citizens, to include Charles Horman and Frank Teruggi, that had possible sensitive information regarding the 1973 coup. Because international laws forbid foreign countries to prosecute foreign citizens without permission from the accused country of residence, the U.S. government had to assist in these executions. With this information, we find the U.S. Embassy negligent regarding the safeguard of American citizens on foreign soil.

2. On the account of covering evidence in the murder of Charles Horman, the U.S. Embassy officials in Chile knowingly deceived and harbored information from the Horman family. Over the course of weeks, Ed and Beth Horman met with several U.S. Embassy officials in a quest to locate Charles Horman dead or alive. Every meeting revealed that Charles Horman has not been located, the morgues and prisons have been searched, and the possibility of Charles Horman voluntarily leaving Chile was the only options offered. Only after Ed Harmon received information from an unnamed source did the U.S. officials confirm the death of Charles Horman in an attempt to cover their tracks. And after receiving the horrific news of his son’s death, Ed Horman was told by the Council Putnam, a U.S. Embassy official, that “if you play with fire, you get burned.”

3. Finally, on the account of tampering with evidence, the U.S. Embassy officials in Chile withheld the body of Charles Horman for an additional seven months before sending his body home for proper burial. This delay is believed to be an attempt to destroy all evidence that could have surfaced with an autopsy. This unnecessary action further deprived the Horman family of any opportunity to solve the mystery of Charles’s murder. The U.S. government, to included Henry Kissinger, knowingly and willfully tampered with pertinent information to hide the negligent deeds of the U.S. government and its officials. And to add insult to injury, the Horman family was charged for the shipment of Charles Horman’s body back to the United States. No remorse or sympathy was ever shown on the behalf of the United States government to the Horman family.

As America was built on justice and freedom, the Horman family trust that justice will be served and those found at fault prosecuted.

A DRY WHITE SESON

The part from the book that wish was incorporated in the film was the initial friendship of the Du Toits and the Ngubenes. The film started off with Gordon Ngubene in the garden and Johan and Jonathan playing together. However, their friendship goes a distant beyond that. In the book, Gordon was a janitor at the school where Ben taught. Ben had taken up for Gordon when some items became missing from one of the other teachers, who accused Gordon. The families became very close that Ben took interest in young Jonathan’s education and paid for his books and tuition as long as he received good grades. The book gives further detail of this friendship as to when Susan took sick while giving birth to Linda, it was Emily Ngubene that came and helped with the housework. However, in the film, Susan treats the Ngubenes as peasants.

This scene was important because it would have showed Susan in a better light. It would have allowed some support of Ben’s family towards the Ngubene’s situation and allowed her, Susan, to fight for justice beside her husband. I think the friendship would have been a better balance for the film instead of everything being black vs. white.

RWANDA

My reactions to the book, “We wish to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families,” was what an awesome read. Phillip Gourevitch sleekly describes the events of the Rwandan 1994 genocide through personal testimonies of Tutsi survivors and victims. The book was an easy read that kept the reader’s attention the entire 353 pages.

The readings were disturbing to hear the truth of such a violation against mankind. It was sad to see a nation totally torn apart because of a status. Gourevitch described page after page heart drenching events that you would not believe if it was not documented. In 1994, the world witnessed genocide and cared less about the outcome of the situation or the victims. Some of the scenes described, especially the ones that involves children, was breathe taking. I just remember throughout the entire book having this feeling of despair and sympathy for both groups. Much so the Tutsis because they received the biggest loses, but for some Hutus that was forced to take actions is such horrible crimes for become victims themselves. I felt the Rwandan government was the total blame for the genocide, but France and other international powers assisted indirectly. One of the most sickening statements in the entire book came from the French President Francois Mitterrand, who stated, “In such countries, genocide is not too important.” Although President Mitterrand said, the other world leaders expressed the same sentiments through their actions. Not only did I as a reader feel frustrated, but you could feel Gourevitch’s frustration as well in his chose of words.

I read the book before watching the film, “Hotel Rwanda.” I was totally surprised at the similarity of the stories that Gourevitch wrote and the stories implemented within the film. The film was more of an effort to honor Paul for his heroic efforts in saving over 1200 Tutsis. Gourevitch eludes to Paul’s humanitarian efforts in the book, but not to such detail. Paul’s story was a unique story because he was caught between a rock and a hard place; he was a Hutu and his wife Tatiana a Tutsi. I thought it was a powerful story because it got the message that ethnicity does not precede humanity. He could have taken his family and left without the burden of 1200 strangers.

Although I thought the film was a great reenactment of the 1994 genocide, there are a few things that I would have taken from the book and incorporated in the film. One, I would have taken the story back a little further to bring the viewers up to speed on the history of the two groups, the civil tension, and what triggered the events of the genocide. The film did make note of the obvious assassination of Rwandan President Habyarimana as a trigger event, but the book told about the civil struggle that had existed for decades. Another event that I wished the film would have shown was Tutsis trying to escape the massacre. For example, in the book, Gourevitch described scenes of Odette and Jean-Baptiste trying to escape with their family and Odette’s sister getting killed or scenes where the Tutsi residents took refuge at local churches to escape the massacres, but getting betrayed by Hutu ministers. I guess I would have liked to the director to show a little more of the struggle that the Tutsis had to endure to escape the sharpened blades of the machete. Furthermore, I would have liked the film to incorporate the ongoing struggle and killings that occurred well after the new Rwandan government was established.

However, I thought the film did the book justice-they complimented each other exceptionally well. The film and book truly showed the lack of support from the international and African governments to help resolve the tragic events of Rwandan history.

No Paradise Now

After reading both sides of the petition, I could see the points of both sides. However, I chose to allow the film to receive it award nominations. The film was a good insight of the mentality of the other side. The director/writer was excellent in getting his point over. He allowed the viewers to see what go on behind the scene and in the minds of suicide bombers and extremist. Personally, I never understood why someone would take their own life to make a point or force change through violence. Although murdering innocent individuals is wrong, the director gives the viewer a chance to dissolve that curiosity. It’s a film, an art. Just like we make films of serial murders does not mean that we condone or glorify these individuals. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on since the early 1900’s, which has included thousands of martyrs and extremist. So I doubt a film that reveals the story of a suicide bomber will cause more or less incidents.

Those that opposed the film seemed to be Israelis, which seem to be upset because the director used Palestine Territory when Palestine is not a state and because they felt film glorified suicide bombers. I never saw the film as a glorification of bombers. I saw two kids scared to death. Two kids brainwashed and socially pressured into the inevitable.

I applaud the director’s efforts in giving us non-Israelis and Palestinians the other side of the story that we never hear or see through other media circuits.

Zinat: Tradition Rules

The entire film revealed a lot about the challenges that women face in a male dominated Iran. However, there were several scenes that were most important in the delivery of the message. I chose the following three scenes to analyze:

1. The scene where both Zinat and Hamed’s families have dinner to discuss their engagement. This was important because it shows how the customs and traditions play a major role in marriages. They discussed Zinat totally giving up her job as the town’s doctor in order to marry their son Hamed. This was important because it initiated the pressure of Zinat giving up her independence. Since it is a honor to be married in the Iranian society, Zinat’s parents ignored her wishes and thoughts in regards to tradition. A tradition that supersedes all personal thoughts.

2. The scene where Zinat and Hamed walks and discusses the extermination of her employment position at the clinic. This was significant because once again, that tradition rules in Iranian society. It was to the point that he was not willing to marry her if she did not chose to lose her job and her identity and become a traditional bride like their mothers and raise his kids. This had to be tough because he truly loved her, but was willing to give in to traditional ways. This scene is importance because at this point, Zinat temporary gave into tradition. Although she was terribly miserable, she sacrificed her individuality due to the pressure of the society she lived in.

3. The scene where Hamed assist Zinat in saving the little girl’s life. This scene was important because it was at that moment that Hamed realized the importance of Zinat’s work. He realized that although tradition and customs are important in shaping our lives, they should not dictate ones actions or individuality. This was important because the tradition that has conquered the lives of countless Iranian women has been compromised.

The one scene of the film that I found confusing was the angry woman that always displays hatred towards Zinat. My guess is that she was jealous of her beauty and success. I am sure this feeling was shared by many women living within the village. She blamed Zinat for the death of her child, but ironically she calls for Zinat to save her other child. It was confusing why this conflict was implemented in this film. I missed its importance. Maybe this character was used to highlight the frustration endured by the Iranian women.

If I could change the ending of the film, I would only change to speed of Hamed leaving his mother standing to join his wife. He should have run from his mother much faster. However, after returning from the saving the little girl, my ending would be for Hamed and Zinat opening a clinic together to allow Zinat to fulfill her dream as a doctor. Furthermore, move out of the home of his parents.