Land of open graves part 3

Ok--for this week, we read Land of Open Graves Part-3 (203-289) or the final part of De León's book. In this
section, you may focus on how migration or being or becoming undocumented migrants comprises the health
of otherwise healthy migrants.
Here are other areas to write about. Given the vivid narratives of those who attempted to cross-coupled with
pictures and descriptions of migrants who died crossing the desert, do you find De León was a bit insensitive
and disrespectful to those who died? Some may argue that his depictions are callous to people who have
suffered such abuses, particularly written from a male author's perspective. Did the pictures rob migrants of
their dignity? On the flip side, do you think that his use of photographs, particularly his photographs of Maricela,
helped De León shine a light on the inhumane and hypocritical way we police our borders and show the
devastating impact on people's lives? He stated, "These photographs should disturb us, because the disturbing
reality is that right now corpses lie rotting on the desert floor, and there aren't enough witnesses." (p. 213.) In
what ways disturbing images encourage us to take action or at least evoke compassionate understandings of
the realities of life and death on the border? Having read parts 1 & 2 and this week part-3, do you believe his
writing made you empathize with migrants & value their contributions both in terms of their stories and their
lives?
Maybe the above prompt is a bit controversial. Let's take another topic to explore. What does De León make
for an archaeological approach to learning about migrant experiences in the Sonora Desert? What do you view
as the strengths and limitations of this approach? What techniques does De León use to privilege the voices of
migrants, and why is this so important to his project? What do you see as the strengths and limitations of this
approach?
One other possibility as you prepare to write your post. Did De León succeed in portraying the realities of
migrants? Early on, he wrote, "the countless tragedies that befall migrants are “neither random nor senseless.”
He clearly demonstrated how PTD “simultaneously uses and hides behind the viciousness of the Sonoran
Desert” (p. 3). Despite showing the atrocities, in part 3, De Leon seems to falter even fail, in my view. He
shamelessly stated, “[t]here is no easy solution” (p. 285). He defends this position by saying that the book was
“never about solving our problem of illegal immigration.” What was the purpose of the book if it doesn't suggest
ways to solve what he calls "our problem"? Is telling the story enough? Do you think the folks he interviewed
would approve "there is no easy solution" trope?