Comics Explained: What If?

The first issue

Marvel recently revealed its new line-up for Phase Four, and one of the newly announced titles is the TV series What If?. This will be based off of the comic series which has been intermittently published since 1977, with a short thirteenth volume being released in 2018! These one-off stories allowed writers to dabble in new stories normally unavailable to them in mainstream comics. You can imagine it as an officially licensed fanfiction from Marvel itself. Today we'll look a bit at the alternate universe writings of What If?.

Origins and Style

Alternate realities have always been a major part of comic book history - DC's Silver Age continuity was explained by alternate realities. Naturally, Marvel thought it could entertain readers by investigating unique scenarios caused by one, or more, divergences in the timeline. Compared to other alternate reality stories, such as Marvel 1604, What If? looked at one specific event, and how a change would lead to a new reality. Until late on in Volume 2 in the 1990s What If? stories were introduced and partially narrated by Uatu the Watcher - imagine a non-horror, comic book version of The Twilight Zone. If you don't know, Uatu the Watcher is a member of an omnipotent, celestial beings who are tasked with watching planets with life to see how life evolves and develops. Unlike most Watchers, Uatu has a habit of interacting with inhabitants of the planet he watches, Earth, and even beings from another universe who believe that the Marvel Universe is a series of comic books... Especially by the end of the 1980s and 1990s, Marvel had been publishing stories for decades, so Uatu would set the scene of how an event originally went allowing readers to understand what was happening. Uatu would introduce the stories until 1995 with What If? Vol. 2 #76 due to him being stripped of his position for killing another Watcher in Fantastic Four #400. Following this the stories would start with no introduction, but occasionally a guest narrator came in - one Daredevil What If? was introduced by Daredevil and Spider-Man writer Brian Michael Bendis! Deadpool kills the Marvel Universe parodied the What If? style by having Uatu explain why Deadpool has become evil and has decided to kill the Marvel Universe, until he himself is killed at the end of the first issue by Deadpool.

For most of its history What If? would change one or two points during a signature issue, and Marvel would give the story which ensued its own reality number - the mainstream reality is Earth-616. Volume 4 was an exception. Uatu returned explaining that he found records from alternate universes where everything was different, the entire world was different instead of one event. Among them included Thor becoming a herald of Galactus, Wolverine becoming the Punisher in 1920s Chicago, and the Fantastic Four emerging in Soviet Russia instead of the US. From Volume 6 What If? focused a lot on major events - Volume 6 saw several specials about the Civil War event. Volume 11's series is actually tied to canon Marvel; the Age of Ultron event created and shattered several realities which What If? explores. A key plot line is that the Invisible Woman and Wolverine travel back in time to kill Hank Pym before he can create Ultron, but removing a key Avenger caused unforseen ripple effects. Volume 11 explored what would happen if other major Avengers were taken from time, including Iron Man and Thor, and one looked at if Ultron never existed, with the accompanying side-effect of Vision never existing. Also, several What If? stories eventually became reality in comics. The second issue, 'What if the Hulk had the brain of Bruce Banner?', somewhat came true when Bruce Banner briefely managed to keep control of his brain when he turned into Hulk. Most importantly, issue 10, 'What if Jane Foster had found the hammer of Thor?', became an official story in Thor Vol. 4 #1 in 2014 when Jane became the Goddess of Thunder when Thor became unworthy. This is important for MCU fans, as the next MCU Thor film has been confirmed to feature Jane Foster becoming a wielder of Mjolnir.

What is Spider-Man had joined the Fantastic Four?

This was the first What If? story and set the stage for the rest of the comic line. It saw at point in divergence in one of Marvel's most signature stories - The Amazing Spider-Man #1. In the original story, a moneyless Spider-Man hopes to join the Fantastic Four in order to get money so gets into their base, the Baxter Building, and proves himself capable of joining. However, he is rejected as the Fantastic Four doesn't pay to be a member. In What If? #1 Spider-Man is accepted turning the team into the Fantastic Five. Instead of regularly being criticised by the Daily Bugle Spider-Man is constantly being called a hero by everyone in the general public. However, his presence causes the Invisible Woman to be pushed out of the group - while Spider-Man, the Human Torch, Thing, and Mr Fantastic go on adventures she is relegated to support. Being neglected the Invisible Woman helps break the King of Atlantis, Namor the Sub-Mariner, from being controlled by the Puppet Master, and she leaves the group to live with him. This story would later get sequels exploring what happens after Spider-Man replaced the Invisible Woman.

Spider-Girl

What If? Vol. 2 #105 in 1998 introduced one of the most famous creations of the What If? series: Spider-Girl. She was created by writer Tom DeFalco and artist Ron Frenz who started an alternate reality story stemming from the very confusing Clone Saga, I would recommend this video here to understand what happened. The story sees Mary Jane and Peter Parker having a daughter, and Spider-Man retiring after losing his leg in a battle with Green Goblin. Naming their daughter May, after Aunt May, they hoped to keep her father's past a secret, but she developed spider-powers regardless. Finding the costume formerly worn by her father's clone she donned it to become the Spider-Girl. Her popularity exploded and May Parker got her own comic line lasting for a hundred issues. An entirely new comics imprint began thanks to Spider-Girl called MC2. MC2 served as a 'sequel' to the mainstream comics featuring stories revolving around the children of classic heroes, or the elderly heroes. Although Spider-Girl's original run was cancelled after the first volume in 2006 her title would be occasionally resurrected, and would later appear in multiverse stories.

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

Left-Wing and the 'Other' History: Indigenous Peoples and the Mexican Revolution

Yaquis in Sonora, c.1911

On this series we have not managed to look at the 'Others' in history so far, and looking at Mexico's indigenous community during the Mexican Revolution shows an interesting way to view the event. Despite being at the forefront of the revolution, indigenous communities have regularly been sidelined in how the Mexican Revolution is remembered. Looking at the Mexican Revolution from below we can see how important indigenous peoples were in shaping the events of the revolt.

The Mexican Revolution - A Brief Overview

The Cananea Strike in 1906

To understand the role of indigenous peoples in the Mexican Revolution we first have to understand the chronology of the revolution itself. Unfortunately, the Mexican Revolution was a long and complex affair lasting over a decade - historians heavily debate about when we can consider the Mexican Revolution 'ending'. As a result, we'll just go over a broad overview of the revolution to keep things easy to understand. Mexico prior to the revolution was dominated by extremely wealthy landlords owning large plantations named haciendas, and the Catholic Church dominated any land not owned by landlords. From the second half of the nineteenth century foreign based companies began purchasing Mexican land placing further pressure on the landless peasantry. On top of society was Porfirio Diaz who had been president since 1876, bar a brief four year absence. Diaz relied on support from the wealthy landowners, much to the chagrin of the peasantry and urban workers. Before the revolution there had been steady opposition to Diaz's regime - most notably from syndicalist Ricardo Flores Magon. By 1910 things came to ahead, the elderly Diaz failed to find a political successor, and the election was contested by landowner Francisco Madero. The election was rigged in Diaz's favour sparking a revolt led by Madero and local figure in Chihuahua Pancho Villa on 20 November. Villa and other revolutionaries started seizing hacienda land, with Diaz's support coming from haciendas, and, eventually, the revolution spread to include the peasantry. In the south, Emiliano Zapata helped lead peasants into revolt against landowners. Diaz was forced to hold free elections in October 1911 bringing Madero to power.

Pancho Villa (L) and Emiliano Zapata (R)

However, the revolution did not end here. Madero just wanted Diaz out; he was disinterested in dismantling the Porfirito state which had been the objective of Villa, Magon, Zapata, and other radicals. Also, as he had not dismantled the existing power structures, conservative forces in Mexico challenged Madero. In 1913 Madero and his allies were overthrown and assassinated by conservative general Victoriano Huerta who aimed to crush the liberal and radical forces in Mexico sparking a new phase of the revolution. Opponents of Huerta united under a banner of 'Constitutionalists', wanting a new constitution, thanks to the work of Venustiano Carranza. Carranza helped unite the anti-Huerta forces, such as Villa in the north and Zapata in the south, to form a united front - this was also aided by the fact that the US occupied Veracruz in 1914. That same year they succeeded, and Carranza was made president, but this did not end the conflict. Carranza's Constitutionalists were largely made up of urban, middle class communities, so opposed the urban and rural radicals. Carranzistas battled for support against the Villistas and Zapatistas for five years. Due to the popularity of the radical Zapata, the government decided to introduce the radical Constitution of 1917 promising extensive land reforms and rights for indigenous peoples. Zapata was also assassinated in 1919 causing widespread grief in the south where he was immensely popular. In 1920, Carranza was assassinated and democratic socialist Alvaro Obregon became president, often seen as the 'end' of the revolution. Villa retired to become a hacienda owner, but was assassinated in 1923 - possibly by the government as Villa had expressed interest in re-entering politics. For the purpose of this post we will say that the revolution 'ended' in 1929. In 1926, conservative forces rose up in response to the government implementing land reform and secularisation. Obregon was assassinated, and concessions were made. We can argue that even today the Mexican Revolution continues, but that is a discussion for another day.

Indigenous Peoples before the Revolution

"Uprising of the Yaqui Indians - Yaqui Warriors in Retreat," by Frederic Remington, 1896

Indigenous Mexicans fit well into the 'subaltern' category as described by Antonio Gramsci - centuries of direct oppression, racially discriminated against, alienated from traditional hegemonic structures, and even linguistically isolated from the rest of Mexico. Of course, there was not one indigenous experience, even among the same communities - indigenous women faced oppression based on race, gender, and class. There were a few norms - since the establishment of Spanish rule in 1521 indigenous communities had faced persecution from the hegemonic power, whether it be Spain or Mexico. The Yaqui in the northern state of Sonora had consistently resisted oppression since 1533, but this often caused harsh reprisals against Yaqui communities. Following the Yaqui Uprising of the 1890s Diaz hoped to permanently end the 'Yaqui Question' by forcibly moving Yaqui communities from Sonora to Yucatan and Oaxaca in the south; the idea behind this was that by moving them to the other side of the country it would separate them from their cultural identity and would force them to become 'Mexican citizens'. From 1902 to 1908 over 7,000 Yaqui were forcibly moved to Yucatan alone; many more were killed, deported elsewhere, or sold into slavery until the outbreak of revolution in 1910. Elsewhere, the situation of indigenous communities were bleak - most were rural, landless, and poor. In 1910, three-quarters of Maya in Yucatan had to work on haciendas for little pay, and 95% of family heads lacked any form of land. Indigenous women were also unfortunately at risk of sexual abuse from landowners and overseers, racist courts and a dependency on haciendas for life meant that resistance to this was difficult. When indigenous people did go to court to air their grievances they were forced to refer to themselves as 'poor people' or 'mestizo', (mixed white and indigenous parentage), as they would be ignored by the court - dismissed as backward and childlike. 

While being persecuted indigenous communities were simultaneously used to identify what it is to be 'Mexican'. Mestizaje, the valourisation of mestizo identity, was emphasised by Mexican intellectuals following independence - Mexico was great as it mixed the glory of the Aztecs with European culture. However, they argued that, thanks to colonialism, indigenous peoples were left backward compared to their ancestors - the current ruling classes positioned themselves as the 'true' heirs. Indigenous communities were further used to forge identity based on conflict. At Namiquipa, Chihuahua an identity emerged of 'white, masculine, civilisation' against the 'savage barbarians' of the Yaqui and Apache dating back to the eighteenth century. The 'border' peoples, often accused of being backwards and not being 'true' Mexicans, used the conflicts with indigenous as a way to define their own identity within the Mexican state.

Indigenous Peoples and Revolution - 1910 to 1917

Zapatista forces entering Cuernavaca, 1911

As Madero relied on figures like Pancho Villa the revolution soon spread to the peasantry who were largely indigenous or mestizo. Emiliano Zapata himself was from a rural, mestizo family. Mexico's southern states, (especially Yucatan, Oaxaca, and Chiapas), have significant indigenous populations, so the rural revolt naturally brought many indigenous peoples into the revolution - Zapata was the main revolutionary in the south. Morelos, Zapata's home state, became a focal point for indigenous activity as indigenous communities rose up in support of a radical break from the past. In 1911, revolutionaries in Morelos, including Zapata, forged the 'Plan of Ayala' which historian John Womack would describe as the Zapatistas' 'Sacred Scripture'. Although not as radical as the 1917 Constitution, the Plan of Ayala emphasised seizing power 'for the benefit of the oppressed peoples' by redistributing 'hacendados...who directly or indirectly oppose the present Plan', i.e. virtually all landowners. The Plan of Ayala's cry of 'Tierra y Libertad!' (Land and Liberty!) inspired the landless, indigenous peasantry to rise up to claim lost land. The Mexican Revolution offered indigenous communities in the north, as well as the south, chances to reclaim their identity and land. Despite centuries of dispossession and genocide, the Yaqui managed to retain a solid cultural identity. Yaqui in Sonora used the opportunity opened by revolution to reclaim their lost land, but when their requests were rejected in October 1915 they decided to take it by themselves. It took a brutal war with Obregon, ending in 1916, to end the land seizures. Racial stereotypes were used to lambast the radical forces. As argued by John Womack, for years peasantry and indigeneity were seen as synonymous, so the pr-Huerta yellow press attacks on rural revolts became racialised. For example, the paper La Imparcial decried 'Zapata and his trogolodyte hosts' as the 'Modern Attila the Hun'. It is notable that the white Obregon and Carranza were not described as modern Huns, but the mestizo Zapata was.

Indigenous Peoples and Revolution - 1917 to 1929
The Constitution of 1917 was passed in order to draw support away from Zapata, but by doing so it brought indigenous rights to the forefront of the Mexican state. Directly inspired by the Plan of Ayala, the Constitution of 1917 became one of the most progressive political documents of the twentieth century. It was particularly important for indigenous peoples; it vowed to protect the 'ancient rights' of peoples, and the radical Article 27 aimed to end land monopolies and expropriate land for 'centers of population that lack communal land'. With the exception of a few states, such as Yucatan, it would take twenty years for land redistrubution to take place, and even then it would be far from complete, but its presence in the Constitution served as a way for communities to express their rights. Mary Vaughan has highlighted how the Yaqui used Article 27 to represent their claims to land, and both the Yaqui and Tzotzil used this period as a way to ensure a cultural revival. The Mexican Revolution further brought indigenous peoples into Mexican political hegemony even in the remotest of places. The Chamula in Chiapas even today remain excluded from society, but Ricardo Pozas recorded the experience of Juan Perez Jolote and how the revolution impacted his life. Juan was forcibly conscripted to serve in Huerta's army, and he changed sides regularly based on circumstances, but throughout he never knew what each side fought for. Each just said 'you fight for us now'. However, moving around and meeting new peoples gave Juan agency to understand who he was as a person, and gave him the courage to challenge his father at home.

The Constitution of 1917

Unfortunately, indigenous peoples remained oppressed following the revolution, however, things had changed. As rural, indigenous peasants had managed to exercise agency hegemonic figures feared a reassertion of this - as argued by Gramsci, any movement of the subaltern will see a counterrevolutionary movement from the hegemonic power. This is seen in the diary of landowner Rosalie Evans who in 1921 described the newly elected member of Congress, Manuel Montes, the 'arch-devil' for his advocacy of land access and peasants rights. She specifically stated that 'the Indians have elected' Montes, and even called them a 'rabble'. Fear of the 'other' reasserting its rights following the revolution and civil war meant that peaceful assertion of rights were seen as terrifying. Conversely, mestizaje and indigismo were used to heal the divides of the last decade - an idealised shared indigenous identity, while actually excluding indigenous peoples, aimed to unite Mexico. This was also due to demographic and external events. Racism flourished in the north as nativists attacked Chinese workers, and anti-American feeling had grown thanks to US involvement during the war. The US occupation of Veracruz in 1914 was one of the few things uniting Mexicans over the last decade, the paper El Independente proudly declared that ‘While Mexicans cut Gringo Pigs Throats in the Churches the Gloria rings Out’. Mestizaje and indigismo were therefore used to forge a new, exclusionary, identity. Poet Carlos Pellicer in Ode to Cuauhtemoc (1923) honoured the last emperor of the Aztec Empire and declared that ‘The civilised monarchies of my America fell’ and that ‘in the crater of my heart/burns the faith that will save your people’.  Meanwhile, philosopher and politician José Vasconcelos argued that through mestizaje ‘We in America shall arrive…at the creation of a new race fashioned out of the treasures of all previous ones: The final race, the cosmic race’. However, the people who could claim indigenous ancestry were exlcuded from this process - mestizaje and indigismo were constructed by elite white, or at times mestizo, communities.

Yucatan and the Revolution

Mural of Salvador Alvarado by Fernando Castro Pacheco

I want to discuss Yucatan as a specific case study about how indigenous revolution took place. Being in the south Yucatan had a large indigenous peoples, and contained many of the famous Mayan pyramids. With large haciendas and indigenous populations Yucatan saw intense sympathy for the radical nature of the Mexican Revolution, and in 1915 a progressive socialist general became governor. Salvador Alvarado had allied himself to the syndicalist Ricardo Flores Magon, specifically returned to Mexico to fight Diaz, and became entanced by feminist theory. Upon arriving in the capital of Merida he began issuing 3,000 decrees over the next three years aiming to help Mayans, women, and the poor (many fit into all three categories). Immediately, he began passing laws liberating Mayans from a destitute and brutal life on the haciendas, banned corporal punishment, ended forced guardianship for indigenois children, and prohibited discriminatory laws. His dream was to transform Mayans and women into a proletariat class, so he implemeted laws to protect urban, domestic, and rural workers (especially women). Working with local Mayans he implemented Agricultural Committees to oversee local conflicts to benefit rural peoples, as well as building up Yucatan's infrastructure. In three years over 1,000 schools were built. However, Alvarado did hold paternalistic attitudes towards women and indigenous peoples. Alvarado believed that Maya had to abandon their culture and adopt a ‘modern’ culture – as late as 1968 historian T.G. Powell viewed integration as a non-racist policy.  In 1917 Alvarado wrote in La Voz de la Revolution that Maya should be equal, but their ‘backwardness’ and moral ‘sickness’ meant that they had to be brought into the ‘robust health’ of ‘civilization’ through education.  The Ciudad Escolar de los Mayas was seen as replacing Catholic and indigenous belief with secular rituals to inspire ‘love for the patria’. Although progressive, Alvarado did hold these paternalistic views towards the Maya. In 1918 Carranza moved Alvarado away from Yucatan, but his support of Victoriano de la Huerta (not to be confused with Victoriano Huerta) over Obregon meant that he was executed by Obregon's forces in 1924.

Elvia Carrillo Puerto

In 1922 democratic socialist, and co-founder of the Mexican Socialist Party, Felipe Carrillo Puerto became governor of Yucatan. Building of Alvarado's reforms, and relying on local indigenous activists, this meant that land reform was most successful in Yucatan. Elvia Carrillo Puerto, his sister, was a key figure in his cabinet, so she managed to ensure that a socialist and feminist attitude towards reform managed to persist in Yucatan. Building on older reforms, the Carrillo Puerto's encouraged education for women, access to family planning, entry into trade unions, and better health care for women and children. Thanks to the influence of Mayan allies Carrillo Puerto helped encourage a resurgence of Mayan identity which persists today - there are now cities named after him in Yucatan for this reason. In defiance of policies coming from Mexico City, Mayan was encouraged in schools, Mayan architecture was implemented in cities, and Mayan ruins were rebuilt or restored, the most famous being the pyramid of Chichen Itza in 1923. However, Carrillo Puerto did express the paternal views of Alvarado and other white progressives. As argued by Jo Smith, Carrillo Puerto conflated female and Mayan identity – he argued that both were out of step with modernity thanks to the Church and were intensely traditional by nature.  The ‘other’ was prevalent in his thought. Poor standard of living and exploitation that Maya and women experienced, and a lack of resistance, was blamed on culture, and gender, instead of societal structures based on exploitation and patriarchy. Although Carrillo Puerto did blame societal institutions, mainly the Church and haciendas, he still blamed the marginalised for their own oppression. As this was happening when mestizaje was being promoted we see the paradoxes of national identity. Those who lacked a voice in society were further excluded from a new social identity being constructed – despite being of the vaulted culture, they were deemed (ironically due to Spanish-Mexican culture) not worthy of being members of the new state. Elvia Carrillo Puerto wanted Maya to have smaller family sizes and use birth control, as she saw large families as keeping women back.  Not only does this policy ignore the key point that many rural could not afford birth control, but it highlights continued paternal, or maternal in this case, overrule. Policies were implemented without the consultation of those who were affected and with a semi-understanding of grassroots issues.

Despite the clear faults in Alvarado's and Carrillo Puerto's approaches, reinforcing oppression instead of solving it, they did offer a space for indigenous peoples to express their own agency. Mayans were integral in implementing the reforms and served in the state government - the positive aspects of their governorships were heavily reliant on the support from Mayans. As a result, the success of the Mexican Revolution in Yucatan came not from the caudillos, but instead the Mayans themselves. Like the Yaqui in the north, Mayan identity flourished and went through a revival, beginning properly in the 1930s, thanks to their involvement with Felipe Carrillo Puerto's cultural policies. In a twist of fate, during the De la Huerta Rebellion Carrillo Puerto found himself on the opposite side of the war to Alvarado, but met a similar fate. He was captured by rebels loyal to de la Huerta and executed in 1924. However, Mayans went to fight with Carrillo Puerto as they saw him as the best way to secure the rights which they had been fighting for. Indigenous peoples managed to involve themselves with the wider politics of Mexico. The Mexican Revolution had gave them the opportunity to do this.

Conclusion

An EZLN mural depicting Zapata

Looking at the Mexican Revolution through how it impacted indigenous communities shows the paradoxes a revolution has on subaltern peoples. They were integral to the revolution, but have often been sidelined. They were spoken for, but found their own voice. They saw success, and setbacks. Indigenous peoples allowed the forging of a new Mexican identity, and their impact influenced the forging of one of the most radical consitutions. Throughout the twentieth century, when inequality in Mexico was being challenged, people would look to the Constitution of 1917 for support. Indigenous peoples took this up as well. In preparation for the passing of NAFTA in 1994 Article 27 of the Consitutution was redrafted to allow for US and Canadian ownership of Mexican land. In response, indigenous and mestizo communities in Chiapas rose up on 1 January 1994 to resist neo-liberalism, racism, and sexism. Creating a link between the past and present they named themselves the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN). Indigenous involvement in the Mexican Revolution forged Mexico and will continue to do so.

The sources I have used are as follows:
-‘The Constitution of 1917: Articles 27 and 123’, in Joseph, G., and Henderson, T., (eds.), The Mexico Reader, (Duke, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 398-402
-Evans, R., ‘An Agrarian Encounter’, in Joseph, G., and Henderson, T., (eds.), The Mexico Reader, (Duke, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 403-405
-Pellicer, C., ‘Ode to Cuauhtemoc’, in Gilbert, G., and Henderson, T., (eds.), The Mexico Reader, (Duke, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 406-410
-Vasconcelos, J., ‘The Cosmic Race’, in Joseph, G., and Henderson, T., (eds.), The Mexico Reader, (Duke, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 15-20
-Zapata and Others, ‘Plan of Ayala’, in Joseph, G., and Henderson, T., (eds.), The Mexico Reader, (Duke, NC: Duke University Press, 2002), 339-343
-Eiss, P., ‘Deconstructing Indians, Reconstructing Patria: Indigenous Education in Yucatan from the Porfiriato to the Mexican Revolution’, The Journal of Latin American History, 9:1, (2004), 119-150
-García, N., ‘”What we want is for the Whites and Soldiers to Leave”, Yaqui and Mexicans in Times of Revolution (1910-1920)’, Historia Mexicana, 66:4, (2017), 1863-1921
-Gilly, A., The Mexican Revolution: A People’s History, (New York, NY: The New Press, 2005)
-Joseph, G., ‘Caciquismo and the Revolution: Carrillo Puerto in Yucatan’, in Brading, P.A., (eds.), Caudillo and Peasant in the Mexican Revolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), 193-221
-Katz, F., ‘Violence and Terror in the Russian and Mexican Revolutions’, in Grandin, G., and Joseph, G., (eds.), A Century of Revolution: Insurgent and Counterinsurgent Violence during Latin America’s Cold War, (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 2010), 41-61
-Powell, T.G., ‘Mexican Intellectuals and the Indian Question, 1876-1911’, The Hispanic American Review, 48:1, (1968), 19-36
-Smith, J., Gender and the Mexican Revolution: Yucatan Women and the Realities of Patriarchy, (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2009)
-Vaughan, M., ‘Cultural Approaches to Peasant Politics in the Mexican Revolution’, Hispanic American Historical Review, 79:2, (1999), 269-305
-Womack, J., Zapata and the Mexican Revolution, (New York, NY: Random House, 1968)

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. We have a list of Left-Wing and the 'Other' posts here if you are interested. For future blog posts please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

Paleo Profiles: Dilophosaurus

The reconstructed holotype at the Royal Ontario Museum

One of the most iconic dinosaurs from Jurassic Park is the crested Dilophosaurus which blinded and ate the hapless Dennis Nedry in one of the most iconic scenes of the movie. The Jurassic Park version of the Dilophosaurus has gone on to inspire recreations of the dinosaur in popular media, ranging from toys to video games. However, the real Dilophosaurus was fairly different from its Hollywood counterpart.

Discovery and Fossils

The Dilophosaurus was first discovered in 1942 by American palaeontologist Charles Camp, who was on an expedition to find vertebrate fossils in northern Arizona. In the Kayenta Formation, guided by local Navajo, the expedition found three dinosaur skeletons. While two were very eroded, the first one they found was almost complete. As always with fossils, there was a large gap in time between initial discovery and description, and the dinosaur was not named until 1954 by palaeontologist Samuel P. Welles. However, he believed that the new dinosaur was a species of an already discovered dinosaur called Megalosaurus, which was actually the first discovered/named dinosaur. Welles named the fossil Megalosaurus wetherelli after a Navajo councillor whose nephew had help discover the fossil, and who had helped the expedition himself. Megalosaurus has been seen as a 'wastebasket taxon' - a taxon where organisms don't seem to fit anywhere else are put in there. In 1964 Welles returned to the Kayenta Formation to find more fossils, and he found another near complete skeleton where the three earlier ones had found. What he found made him realise that Megalosaurus wetherelli was not as they initially thought. The skull of the new discovery had crests, and the dinosaur was overall larger than the earlier finds. Upon re-examining the holotype Welles realised that the crests had become dislodged from the skull, so he had the dinosaur renamed to Dilophosaurus wetherelli - 'Two-crested Lizard'. New fossils were found and in 1987 a near complete skeleton was discovered in Lufeng Province, China, and a few years later named Dilophosaurus sinensis. It was later discovered to not be actually a Dilophosaurus, but instead another species of a different dinosaur called Sinosaurus in 2017.

Biology

The real life Dilophosaurus differed greatly from its appearance in Jurassic Park

Dilophosaurus was a theropod dinosaur - this was a suborder of dinosaurs characterised by bipedal stances. This order includes many different species ranging from modern birds to the Tyrannosaurus. Existing at the very start of the Jurassic Period Dilophosaurus this means that it was one of the earliest theropods, and definitely one of the earliest large carnivores. When it was alive it would have been one of the largest carnivorous dinosaurs on the planet; from snout to tail it could reach 6 metres long, and could reach heights of up to 2 metres. Very different from the diminutive version in the movies. The initial three skeletons found were determined to be juveniles as the fossil found by Welles was much larger than the first three. An adult would therefore be the size of a brown bear. Just like a bear Dilophosaurus had very powerful arms - this will become important later. They were likely quite hardy animals. Phil Senter and Sara Juengst in 2016 found that one specimen had eight fairly bad injuries. However, most of the injuries showed signs of healing indicating that it could have lived years after getting initially wounded. A reason why it might have survived so long is possible evidence of pack behaviour. As specimens of similar ages have been found together it has led to the suggestion that they worked and lived together to survive - it would explain how the injured one lived. However, we cannot be entirely certain - a flash flood could explain why they were found together, especially considering how well preserved some specimens are. We now know that most dinosaurs would be feathered by the end of the Jurassic, but palaeontologists have been debating about when feathers developed. We have yet to find evidence of feathers on Dilophosaurus itself, but in 2004 Martin Kundrat reported finding traces of filaments from downy feathers on a theropod dinosaur from early Jurassic Massachusetts. If this dinosaur had some form of feathers it is not out of the question that Dilophosaurus also did so. Senter and Juengst even found that their specimen had a deformed humerus and finger thanks to developmental osteodysplasia - a condition previously only found in modern birds. If a Dilophosaurus has been found with this condition, this indicates that it more than likely had feathering.

A skull in the Royal Tyrell Museum

The most iconic part of Dilophosaurus is easily its crest. Unlike in Jurassic Park, the Dilophosaurus never had a frill - that was made up for the film, likely so audiences would not get it confused with the Velociraptors. The v-shaped crest shaped have often been disarticulated from the skull so for a while palaeontologists were not sure how it would go on the animal's head. Quite possibly the initial three specimens had their crests preserved, but as the expedition team did not know they existed consequently did not look for them. Initial reconstructions had the crest resting on the back of the skull and going onto the neck; this has since been rejected as it would restrict the neck's movement. Instead the crest started at the front of the skull and ended at the back. A real life equivalent could be the crest of a male cassowary, as shown below:

What were the crests used for? Initial theories of combat or thermoregulation have been rejected, so visual display is a likely function. Theropod dinosaurs likely could see bright colours as modern birds do, so the crests would be brightly coloured. Male Dilophosaurus would have the brightest crests in order to attract a mate, or scare off rival males. Finally, we have the jaw, which features a large notch in the upper jaw. This made it very weak - Dilophosaurus would be unable to break through bone. This led to questions about how or what it could eat - when writing Jurassic Park Michael Crichton theorised that they were venomous. We have no evidence for this, but palaeontologists have theorised how and what it ate.

Diet 

One of the biggest questions concerning the Dilophosaurus is its diet. With a weak jaw hunting down prey like a modern lion or wolf could be potentially dangerous. One wrong bite and its jaw would be broken. Different theories about how Dilophosaurus could have eaten. For one, it had very strong arms. Long, powerful arms, like a bear, could be used instead of its jaws to attack prey, and potential pack behaviour could improve the chances of a successful kill. One swipe could do serious damage, and an injured animal would be unable to escape when surrounded by other dinosaurs. Hence, its jaw would only need to be strong enough to tear flesh from a carcass, and even then the strong arms could also be used to break a carcass into smaller, manageable pieces. Some palaeontologists did suggest that Dilophosaurus was a scavenger, but as no living large animal exists entirely by scavenging this hypothesis has been rejected. A later theory suggested that the jaws weren't used for killing prey, but rather holding prey. Dilophosaurus lived alongside many smaller animals ranging from herbivorous dinosaurs to frogs, so they would be its primary food source. A Dilophosaurus would catch a small animal where its front teeth would slash the prey, by the time it reached the back of the jaws the prey would be too weak to resist. Andrew Milner and James Kirkland in 2000 suggested a new theory which has become increasingly accepted. The Kayenta Formation has been discovered to be rather wet, and many fish fossils have been found there. Most importantly, wading marks have been found from carnivorous dinosaurs indicating the diet of Dilophosaurus: fish. The strong arms show signs of being even able to grip prey so a diet of fish would be ideal. Like a bear, Dilophosaurus would wade into water where it would swipe up fish to eat in its weak jaws. Milner and Kirkland have found that Dilophosaurus had similar adaptations to the known fish-eating Spinosaurus: long teeth near the front of the skull to hold fish in place; long and strong arms; and nostrils further back in the skull to avoid water entering them. It is therefore likely that Dilophosaurus waded into water to catch fish and other aquatic life.

When and Where

The reconstructed model 'Dyzio' in the Geological Museum of the State Geological Institute in Warsaw

Dilophosaurus lived 193 million years ago in the Early Jurassic. Dinosaurs had begun to fully evolve as a distinct group during the Mid to Late Triassic, and the Late Triassic extinction left them as the dominant terrestrial group. At this time most of the best known dinosaur orders - like stegosaurids, sauropods, and tyrannosaurids - had yet to evolve. Dilophosaurus would have been one of the largest carnivores, especially as large terrestrial life had yet to bounce back from the Triassic-Jurassic extinction. This is also a reason why Dilophosaurus likely had a diet consisting of fish: there were few large herbivorous dinosaurs to hunt. We have currently only found Dilophosaurus in Arizona, but the formation group which the Kayenta Formation is part of comprise most of the South-west United States. We probably could have seen Dilophosaurus in this region as well. Unlike contemporary Arizona, the Kayenta Formation was humid and wet with plenty of lakes and rivers. Rivers preserve fossils well as the sediment protects specimens from the elements. The high number of well preserved specimens, including the first Dilophosaurus to be found, and high number of aquatic animals in the area show this. Dilophosaurus lived in an environment closer to modern Florida than modern Arizona.

Thank you for reading. The sources I have used are as follows:

-Gregory S. Paul, The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs, Second Edition, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016)

-S.P. Welles, 'New Jurassic Dinosaur from the Kayenta Formation of Arizona', GSA Bulletin, 65:6, (1954), 591-598

-S.P. Welles, 'Dilophosaurus (Reptilia: Saurischia), A New Name for a Dinosaur', Journal of Paleontology, 44:5, (1970), 989

-S.P. Welles, 'Dilophosaurus wetherilli dinosauria theropoda osteology and comparisons', Palaeontographica Abteilung A Palaeozoologie-Stratigraphie,185:4-6, (1984), 85-180

-Robert Gay, 'New specimens of Dilophosaurus wetherilli (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the early Jurassic Kayenta Formation of northern Arizona', Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists Annual Meeting Volume Mesa, Arizona, 1:1, (2001)

-'Dilophosaurus', Prehistoric-Wildlife.com, [Accessed 12/07/2019]

-Phil Senter and Sara Juengst, 'Record-Breaking Pain: The Largest Number and Variety of Forelimb Bone Maladies in a Theropod Dinosaur', PLoS ONE, 11:2, (2016), 1-13

-Martin Kundrat, 'When did Theropods Become Feathered? - Evidence for Pre-Archaeopteryx Feathery Appendages', Journal of Experimental Zoology Part B: Molecular and Developmental Evolution, 320B:4, (2004), 355-364

-Andrew Milner and James Kirkland, 'The Case for Fishing Dinosaurs at St. George Dinosaur Discovery Site at Johnstone Farm', Survey Notes of the Utah Geological Survey, (2007), 39, 1-3

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. For other Paleo Profiles we have a list here, and for future blog updates please see our Facebook page or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.

Facing Mount Kenya, Anthropology, and the Forging of Identity

Kenyatta on the cover of the first edition

Identity has always been, and always will be, something every changing. This can range from how we identify as an individual, to how a nation identifies as itself. In 1938, Jomo Kenyatta, the future first president of Kenya, wrote an anthropological text called Facing Mount Kenya which was intended as the first anthropological text written on the Kikuyu by a Kikuyu. Kenyatta was frustrated how European anthropologists wrote, and therefore attempted to determine, what Kikuyu culture was, but he had other motives in writing Mount Kenya. His book was an attempt for Kenyatta himself to formulate the identity of his own people, and establish himself as an influential representative of the Kikuyu.

Anthropology and Empire in Kenya

Mt Kenya was a key feature in the geography and local belief

Empire was more than just armies from Europe arriving in Africa, extracting resources, and ruling over the African populace until independence after the Second World War. I discussed this in a previous World History post about colonialism and imperialism. In the words of Helen Tilley, Africa became a 'living laboratory' where informal agents of empire, (including missionaries, merchants, and anthropologists), helped shaped language, culture, and faith - often with aid from local allies. Although identities existed prior to colonialism, they were far more fluid before the arrival of colonial rule. Different ethnicities married, traded, and communicated, and colonial era sources from Kenya indicate that circumcision could determine your identity. It was possibly for a Kikuyu mother to have one Kikuyu child and one Masai child as a result; Kenyatta himself in Facing Mount Kenya would proudly state that his grandmother was a Masai. However, European colonialists interpreted identity and culture in rigid categories - you were one thing and only one thing. This is especially true for anthropologists. Ostensibly for 'scientific research' anthropologists, relying on local agents from the cultures which they studied, aimed to 'understand' cultures while assisting colonial rule. It was not uncommon for anthropologists to criticise colonialism, but not because they disagreed with colonialism. Instead, they viewed their work as assisting colonial rule - their research was seen as allowing an understanding of colonised cultures to be presented to officials who could then rule more effectively. It is no coincidence that colonial officials became amateur anthropologists - such as C.W. Hobley and H.R. Tate in Kenya. Their work forged rigid boundaries and categories steeped in Orientalist views - Africans were seen as being conservative, homogenous, and rooted in superstitious. This increased after the First World War when British policy wanted to preserve 'traditional' culture, so anthropologists became the determiners of what 'tradition' was. This was even criticised by members of the colonial government. Secretary of Native Affairs of Tanganyika, Philip Mitchell, in 1930 would criticise anthropologists for assuming the static nature of society, ‘People…and customs and customary law are in a state of continuous development’.

Kenya was a unique case in the British colonial empire. It had both a large white settler population, while also encouraging 'indirect rule' for different ethnicities, referred to as 'tribes'. The polarising nature of Kenya as a colony meant that a variety of Kikuyu, and other ethnicities, lived very different lives. While some lived in what is seen as a 'traditional' villages, others moved to the cities, like Nairobi, to work in the new urban, capitalist economies. These Kikuyu were often criticised as being 'detribalised' as they had forsaken 'tradition' for an urban life. Before the First World War Christian missionaries had played an influential role in educating rural Kikuyu, so we also saw the emergence of Christian Kikuyu communities. A push and pull atmosphere emerged as missionaries, after even 1918, tried to enforce Anglo-Christian ideas onto communities who had mixed their own culture with Christianity. It would be primarily urban, Christian educated Africans who would form the first nationalist groups in Kenya - such as the Kikuyu Central Association (KCA). Another major part of life in Kenya was tenancy in the 'White Highlands'. Central Kenya had fertile land, so white settlers, and later some South Asians, would oust Africans from their land, and many were forced to squat on white farms or became labourers for white farmers. Over 12,000 square miles of fertile land was expropriated for white settlement creating a large, often unemployed, rural population. The growth of cities were linked to this - from 1938 to 1952 Nairobi's population doubled as rural communities moved there for work.

Jomo Kenyatta

Jomo Kenyatta in the 1960s

Jomo Kenyatta was born to a rural Kikuyu family in the 1890s, and lived in what could be considered a 'traditional' Kikuyu life. That is until 1909, when he joined the Church of Scotland Mission at Thogoto, learnt English, and lived away from his rural home in the 'Kikuyuland'. The Scottish Missions remained zealous in their desire to convert Kenya to Christianity, so Kenyatta's education was filtered through a religious lens - in Mount Kenya he would refer to the Kikuyu god, Ngai, in similar words to how missionaries referred to the Christian god. Kenyatta, like many other Kikuyu, would blend his own beliefs with that of Christianity - despite being educated and raised by missionaries he chose to go through the irua initiation ceremony at aged 13 which missionaries loathed as it involved circumcision. After leaving school he would move to the cities and become involved with the KCA in 1922. Although anti-imperialist, the KCA had a conservative view towards women, and particularly irua, which Kenyatta would clash with. Women had to undergo irua, which included clitoridectomy, if they wished to enter adulthood, however, female genital mutilation can cause serious health problems, and even death, for women. In 1929 the 'Circumcision Crisis' broke out. The Thogoto Church at Nyeri hoped to wipe out irua by refusing communion to anyone supporting the ceremony - the church lost 2,250 out of 2,500 members. The KCA argued that irua was an integral part of Kikuyu culture so had to be defended at all costs, whereas Kenyatta viewed it as dangerous and that with 'proper education' could be eradicated. Kenyatta's progressive attitude towards women would unfortunately end here. Regardless, in 1929 the KCA had hopes that Kenyatta could represent them in London, hoping that having a voice in the capital their grievances could be aired. In 1929 Kenyatta made his way to London.

Bronislaw Malinowski

London would prove an influential time for Kenyatta. In the capital he managed to broaden his horizons engaging in everything from political debates to acting to (much to the chagrin of the KCA) living with prostitutes. He could easily meet anti-imperialist thinkers and activists in London, and he quickly built up ties with a wide range of anti-imperialists including the left-wing of the Labour part and even Gandhi! He was at home everywhere - historian Martin Meredith described him being equally at home in a theatre and a working-class pub. An important contact he made, which would forge some of his legend during the independence movement, was with Trinidadian Marxist George Padmore. A journalist and author, until the 1930s he worked as a recruiter for the Soviet Union - he would discuss communism and anti-imperialism with African anti-imperialists, like Kenyatta, and help them to the Soviet Union where they would be trained in political theory, organisation, and even armed rebellion. Kenyatta spent some time in Moscow but soon left. He disliked the USSR's criticisms of nationalism, and George Padmore viewed him as a reactionary, especially due to his attitude towards women. Kenyatta returned to London and enrolled in the London School of Economics in 1933. There he would meet anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, who would later write the introduction to Facing Mount Kenya. Malinowski was one of the most influential colonial-era anthropologists, but by the time he met Kenyatta he had become increasingly critical of empire and imperial anthropology. Kenyatta wanted anthropology to challenge colonialism, so he made common ground with Malinowski. In 1938, he managed to bring together his essays on Kikuyu culture and write the first text on the Kikuyu by a Kikuyu: Facing Mount Kenya.

Facing Mount Kenya

Kenyatta aimed to challenge notions that the Kikuyu were backwards and incapable of ruling themselves which had been presented in anthropological texts written by colonialists. To achieve this he presented a lived experience of Kikuyu culture, economy, politics, and faith in order to show that they were not too dissimilar from what Europeans knew, or show that they were not 'savage' as previously thought. For example, Kenyatta discussed fondling by young lovers called ngweko which had been heavily criticised by missionaries as being lustful and sinning. Kenyatta instead argued that there were many rules as apart of ngweko, boys could not fully undress girls as an example, with there being a deep social stigma for violating these rules. He even went as far as to criticise British courtship as there were no confirmed societal rules as the Kikuyu had. Europeans were not the only intended audience for Facing Mount Kenya. Kenyatta was keen to make sure that he would be an influential figure in the KCA or any future anti-imperial organisations, so he wanted Facing Mount Kenya to position himself in this role. For one, Kenyatta was keen to distance himself from, and outright denounce, 'detribalised' Kikuyu who were hiding in Nairobi and trying to forget their own heritage. He emphasised his own rural childhood and upbringing; he proudly stated that his ‘grandfather was a seer and a magician…I served a kind of apprenticeship in the principles of the art’. 

A common theme in colonial writing was an emphasis on Africans being locked in superstition - C.W. Hobley stated that there were over forty thahu, (curses), that he equated to sin. Causes for someone to contract a thahu could range from incest to a dog dying in a village (which Hobley stated was the worst one), and the wasting effects of the curse was due to the guilt of the individual with it. We see an Orientalist approach to this - with over forty curses being caused by things as innocuous as broken pots you get the impression that the Kikuyu were perpetually fearful of being cursed. However, Kenyatta hardly mentions curses in his text, and states that ‘a curse from a dying father or mother is the most dreadful thing that can be befall a son or daughter’. A far cry from a dead dog. Instead, Kenyatta tried to show that Kikuyu belief in thahu was as much grounded in rationality as Christian views of sin.

From Bantu Beliefs and Magic

One homogenous feature of Kikuyu culture was irua – circumcision. Irua was both the most central and controversial aspect of Kikuyu culture during the colonial period. How one was circumcised determined your cultural identity (whether you were Kikuyu, Masai, or Kamba), it served as a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, and, according to African-American anthropologist Ralph J. Bunche, irua created a strong bond between those circumcised at the same time. This bond, sometimes referred to as a rüke, could supersede family loyalties. Irua ceremonies were also a large communal affair with possibly days of celebrations happening. However, thanks to high mortality rate during childbirth, constant pain, and other health risks an interventionist colonial state wished to eliminate the practice. Irua consequently became a focal point for nationalist discourses. Kenyatta viewed support for irua as being integral to legitimacy among Kikuyu nationalists, so his earlier criticisms were soon abandoned. He even downplayed the seriousness by stating that his own mother had no issues giving birth, and he would compare the operator to a 'Harley Street surgeon' - something Malinowski would criticise him for stating in the introduction. 

Furthermore, Kenyatta would homogenise the actual ceremony itself. All communities performed irua, but each one would modify the ceremony in their own way. The ‘central pillar’ of the Kikuyu home was, in reality, highly flexible. Kenyatta would say it was a great taboo for males to see female circumcision, and that the collecting of sticks, which were used in the ceremony, from a specific tree was highly gendered. Boys were meant to shake the tree branches and girls pick up the fallen branches. In contrast, Bunche made no reference to the gendered stick collection, and the local chief, Koinange, even threatened to remove his daughters from the ceremony if Bunche was barred from viewing it. Koinange, in private, admitted to him that ‘it does [not do] the girl any good to be circumcised…Most people accept circumcision blindly as an old custom’. Meanwhile, colonial official and amateur anthropologist C.W. Hobley was immediately allowed to view the ceremony and take photos. Different ideas of community in the form of irua were ignored in Kenyatta’s account – to appear as a people ready for self-rule fluidity of culture was ignored.

Moreover, Kenyatta silenced alternate ideas of home and community throughout Mount Kenya. Kikuyu society was patriarchal but women played an important role in local communities – Koinange implied this by suggesting that girls were capable of deciding whether to be circumcised or not. However, Kenyatta only stated his own opinion on irua, no women’s opinions were mentioned. Female agency is entirely silenced in Kenyatta’s account – Padmore did view Kenyatta to be fairly reactionary with his views and Bruce Berman also described him as a ‘conservative reformer’ for this reason. Homosexual identity is entirely erased. Particularly in pre-colonial times there was the practice of mugawe where male religious figures would occasionally cross-dress, or engage in same-sex relations. Christian missionaries, and later colonial officials, rigorously enforced anti-homosexuality laws and attitudes which continue to this day. Kenyatta went as far as to say that due to there being less of a taboo towards sex and the existence of ngweko, it ‘makes it unnecessary’. The only identity Kenyatta was unwilling to erase was ethnic – he proudly admitted that his paternal grandmother was a Masai – but even then, he downplayed the fluidity of this identity. Mount Kenya erases different ideas of the home in favour of just one – Kenyatta’s.

Conclusion

Facing Mount Kenya shows how identity can be changed and shaped, how it is never fixed. Mount Kenya helped solidify Kenyatta's role in the nationalist movements, and he became the head of the Kenya African Union (KAU) in 1944. The KAU would be the most influential nationalist movement in Kenya, and Kenyatta himself would be called 'the Hero' and 'Great Elder' for his role in it. Although Kenyatta would have little to do with the Mau Mau Uprising he was arrested by the British as a possible scapegoat, and as he was seen as the most influential figure in the nationalist movement. When Kenyatta became president of a newly independent Kenya it was his vision of Kikuyu society which would continue on throughout the independence era - for better or for worse. Facing Mount Kenya shows how identity is never fixed and can be used for various reasons.

The sources I have used are as follows:

-Ralph J. Bunche, ‘The Irua Ceremony among the Kikuyu of Kiamba District, Kenya’, The Journal of Negro History, 26:1, (1941), 46-65

-C.W. Hobley, Bantu Beliefs and Magic, (London: H.F. & G. Witherby, 1922)

-Jomo Kenyatta, Facing Mount Kenya: The Tribal Life of the Gikuyu, (London: Secker & Warburg, 1938)

-Louis Leakey, ‘The Kikuyu Problem of the Initiation of Girls’, The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 61, (1931), 277-285

-Bruce Berman, ‘Ethnography as Politics, Politics as Ethnography: Kenyatta, Malinowski, and the Making of Facing Mount Kenya’, Canadian Journal of African Studies, 30:3, (1996), 313-344

-Martin Meredith, The State of Africa: A History of the Continent since Independence, (London: Simon & Schuster, 2005)

-Derek Peterson, Creative Writing: Translation, Bookkeeping, and the Work of Imagination in Colonial Kenya, (Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2004)

-Thomas Spear, ‘Neo-Traditionalism and the Limits of Invention in British Colonial Africa’, The Journal of African History, 44:1, (2003), 3-27

-Helen Tilley, Africa as a Living Laboratory: Empire, Development and the Problem of Scientific Knowledge, 1870-1950, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2011)

Thank you for reading and I hope you found it interesting. For future blog updates please see our Facebook or catch me on Twitter @LewisTwiby.