Featured post

TO THE PUBLISHER. “Occupied America ” 12-7-18

Rudy Acuña – TO THE PUBLISHER. “Occupied America “Sorry that I…

TO THE PUBLISHER. “Occupied America

“Sorry that I was in a rush about the LOs.[Learning Objectives] Since my heart surgery I have had to walk. As always you made me think. One of the conclusions I have come to is that the book does not belong with Pearson, it has not felt right since Harper and Row. I have taught K-12. In elementary school the teacher is on center stage.In Middle and high school the textbook is the center of the teaching experience. In college the stage shifts.At 86 it is a whole different ball of wax. I teach two classes, a lecture class with 45-50 students and an online class with 80-95 students. The textbook becomes a tool not the teacher. Even the lecture class is a hybrid. In both classes the computer is at the center. Canvas necessitates having learning objectives built into the course (not the book). Teaching is taken to a different level. Although I prefer the lecture class I have to admit Canvas makes it easier. Exams, assignments are all posted and I just have to adjust to the classes. Like the LO the computer keeps it focused.

College students have their own computers or at least access. What makes Pearson different than Harper is that Pearson sells to institutions . It does not sell to the mass market. Its books are generally supplements rather than texts. Texts sell through college bookstores that are monopolized by giants such as Follett that have a monopoly. The rub comes in the difference between a text and a trade-book. Occupied America is a monograph that is treated like a textbook and Longman and then Pearson have wanted to convert into a textbook confusing its identity. The problem is also l with me. I am a teacher but also a skeptic. In truth, I should have left Occupied America as is after the first edition and moved on.”

Rudy Acuña

Venezuela: No “P” on My forehead

No “P” On My Forehead


No “P” On My Forehead by Rudy Acuña

I will be the first to admit that I am not an expert on what is happening in Venezuela but I know enough about the history of Latin America to say with certainty that the United States has caused most of the two continents misery. Porfirio Diaz was a dictator and tyrant but one of the few things I agreed with him is when he said “Pobre Mexico tan lejos de dios y tan cerca de los estados unidoes.”  I have read countless accounts of Americans bleeding with compassion for Mexican oligarch’s who supported Diaz and how the US should intervene for humanitarian reasons. No one objected to the tyranny of these elites who sold Yaqui People to Yucatan at 25 pesos a head so American investors could develop the Yaqui Valley or the oppression of the Mexican peasantry. Villa, the tyrant, according to them had to be brought down. Throughout the 20th century we landed marines to insure that oligarchs could be installed as American puppets so Americans could have access to land and natural resources. The communists were going to take over take over the government. When Fidel liberated Cuba, again the communist were going to take over. The people to Americans meant white oligarchs who enjoyed tremendous privileges were going to have to live like black Cubans. In 1974 Arbenz had to go, neoliberalism would cure Chile’s problems. The same occurred during the 1980s in Guatemala, el Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. We were ensuring democracy and order. Now we are supporting a butcher in Brazil who is beginning a genocide of indigenous people with the US sprinkling him with holy water. Well I just cannot buy that we should bleed for oligarchs because there a leveling of society is taking place and poor little fresas can go back and do what the always do look down on  “pinche indios” and “pinche negros.” Logic and my heart tell me that the U,.S. does not give a shit about the poor.R