REL 3145 Paper 4 Fall 2013

The following statements come from what was, in fact, one of the best papers.

Ever since her appearance she [the Virgin of Guadalupe] has become a source of hope, a direct figure of Mexican freedom and identification, and the ember that ignited the Catholic movement in Latin America.

The Virgin of Guadalupe became all of these things - but it did not happen overnight. "Ever since her appearance" suggests that from the time when she first appeared, the Virgin of Guadalupe was a symbol of freedom. That isn't true - thinking historically means understanding the process by which she was chosen as a symbol of freedom. Omitting that one word "ever" would turn this into an accurate sentence - since she appeared, over time, this is what she has become.

From the same paper:

After the roses' miracles and seeing her picture in Juan Diego's cloak, indigenous saw huge similarity between the Virgin of Guadalupe and Tonantzin. Later on, they believed that the Virgin was Tonantzin, so they started believing that she was the real  "Mother of all". When the Spaniards came and "conquered" them, they implemented the Catholic religion, but it was a step easier because they had the Virgin by this time, and now days she's part of the Catholic religion.

First, the story of the Virgin's miraculously appearing on the cloak is here incorporated into historical explanation. The writer does not ask whether the story of Juan Diego is true, the truth is simply taken for granted as we are told how the indigenous looked at the cloak and recognized Tonantzin. That is the first error. (Even if one takes the Nican Mopohua at face value, the reaction of the indigenous described here is not recorded in the document).

Secondly, we are told that they saw a similarity between the Virgin and Tonantzin. No evidence is given. Furthermore, as I pointed out many times, Tonantzin is not a name, it is a form of address. Let me give an analogy: you regularly call your teachers "Professor" when speaking to them, but none of you imagine that we all have the same name. Imagine if someone thought that all teachers on this campus shared the same name, "Professor". Or suppose that a new teacher joined the campus, and someone, hearing the new teacher called "Professor" said "The students mistook the new teacher for their old teacher, and so called her by the same name, Professor..."

Thirdly we are told that after the Spanish conquered the Nahuatl, it was easier for them to implement Catholicism, because the Nahuatl already accepted the Virgin Mary. That overlooks the fact that, whenever the apparition at Tepeyac took place (if it did), it was after the conquest. The Nahuatl did not accept the Virgin Mary, and then suffer conquest, they were conquered, and then they began to accept the Virgin Mary.

Fourthly, the word 'conquered' was placed in speech marks. Why? Usually, speech marks are used to indicate that other people have made a claim that the writer does not endorse. For example:

It was in 1556 that a "miracle" took place in Tepeyac.

But there can be no grounds for doubt about the fact that the Spanish conquered the Aztecs. You may think that this is bad, and wish the conquest didn't take place, but it did. In the same way, Hitler invaded Poland - we don't say that Hitler "invaded" Poland. I could understand someone saying that the Spanish "converted" the Aztecs, indicating doubt about whether they really embraced Catholicism from inner conviction, but the conquest is just a fact of history.

Fifthly what's the point of saying that the Virgin is part of the Catholic religion nowadays? The Virgin Mary was part of the Catholic religion long before the Spanish conquest. The Virgin of Guadalupe was always a Catholic image. You could say that Tepeyac is now a Catholic shrine, whereas it was once an Aztec shrine, or that Mexico is now a Catholic nation, but what's the point of saying that the Virgin is now Catholic, as if she was once something else?

That's a lot of errors. This was still a good paper: despite these errors of detail, worked well as a whole. I can tell that many of these errors are due to careless phrasing rather than a lack of knowledge - it should be a warning to all of you to read over what you have written carefully, and ask whether you have expressed exactly what you mean to say.

Back to REL 3145