So many thoughts in my mind right now, all the experiences, the learning, the new knowledge, the new friends and the consolidation of my culture, my civilization, my background, my history and the things that make me who I am!
To start, I want to say that this class was very important for me since the beginning of the course. I was exited to know more about the literature of the region in which I was born. I am proud about Mexico, but I am also proud about Latin America. Those countries are very similar to my country, we share believes and, in some times, we share history. To know more bout Argentina or Venezuela, help me to understand better the situation of the society that I belong.
At the beginning I was a little bit afraid because this is my first time out of home, without my family, my friends, in a new culture with a new language. It was very difficult to express myself at the beginning, or to understand everything, or to participate in the right way! So many things to do in a little period of time and with a lot of things in my mind! Now I am very glad because it was a big challenge for me and I think that I did it! (even if I am not expressing myself in the right way!)
Lets talk about the novels! Definitely, The General in his labyrinth and The Feast of the Goat are my favorite novels in this course! But I think that all the novels were good and show me interesting things that I had not realized before coming here!
Facundo: This dichotomy between civilization and barbarism is not over in our times! What about los Zapatistas in Chiapas! or North America vs. Latin America. But at the same time, I realized that you don’t have to find North American or European solutions for a Latin American country! You have to adapt your knowledge to your culture and to your background.
The president: Amazing novel, the rudeness of the dictator is the real image of some parts of our history, but, at the end of the book, there will be always a little bit of hope!
I the supreme: The most difficult book of the course, a big challenge for my language! I will read it again and I will understand better the next time! I think that his novel can be adapted to any dictatorship in the world. This image of the dictator can be adapted to Augusto Pinochet, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, or maybe (I will try to find how) also to Hitler or Mussolini!
The general in his labyrinth: Simon Bolivar the man and not the myth! The hero of Latin America converted in a common human like us! He had not superpowers or something extra natural, just a big dream, with big determination and with the courage to keep moving forward even if you can not do more! The illness can kill a man, but nothing will kill the ideas, the dreams and the thoughts of a legend. That is a real leader and a real hero!
The Feast of the Goat: The present in the past and the past in the present! Maybe the best description of the actual society as a function of our history! Not just the life under a dictatorship, also the life after the dictatorship! The consequences, the fears, the broken dreams and the believes that our history led to us.
Wikipedia; Come on Bessie and Lynn! We can do it! A big experience that you can hate or you can enjoy, it depends in your perspective and your point of view.
Saturday, April 5, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Feast of the Goat 2
Mario Vargas Llosa is one of the most important authors in Latin America, I like this book because it was written in 2000, then, the reality that it describes, is somehow related to the reality that the Latin American countries are facing nowadays. Even if the book is talking about the past, there are elements that guide us to the present.
First of all I am going to try to talk about the style; there is a Mexican movie “Amores Perros” (I do not know the translation, but it was nominated to the Oscar as the best foreign movie) this movie has three different stories that are interrelated with each other. When I was reading the nine stories that the book has, I was remembering when I saw that movie for the first time. The interaction between the different stories, creates the perception or the feeling, that, even if there are many different backgrounds in the characters, the final goal is the same.
The Urania’s roll in the story, is the most interesting for me. I can not say that she is the main character, but I think that she represents the present and the past of the Dominican Republic. The present when she is cold, uninterested about the situation; the pain that she has about the past, maybe represents the pain that the society feels in this moment.
In the final part of the book, for me is very interesting how Trujillo has a lot of influence even when he is death. The power that she had in his life overcome his own death.
First of all I am going to try to talk about the style; there is a Mexican movie “Amores Perros” (I do not know the translation, but it was nominated to the Oscar as the best foreign movie) this movie has three different stories that are interrelated with each other. When I was reading the nine stories that the book has, I was remembering when I saw that movie for the first time. The interaction between the different stories, creates the perception or the feeling, that, even if there are many different backgrounds in the characters, the final goal is the same.
The Urania’s roll in the story, is the most interesting for me. I can not say that she is the main character, but I think that she represents the present and the past of the Dominican Republic. The present when she is cold, uninterested about the situation; the pain that she has about the past, maybe represents the pain that the society feels in this moment.
In the final part of the book, for me is very interesting how Trujillo has a lot of influence even when he is death. The power that she had in his life overcome his own death.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Feast of the Goat 1
I know! I know! I am a bad person, is Friday and I just going to post the first part of Feast of the Goat.
I am going to start with the comparisons with the rest of the books; with The General in his labyrinth, I will say that the genre is very important in both books. Even if The President has a lot of influence in the women roll, here its different because is only one woman it seems that she has more influence that anyone else in this book. With I this supreme I will say that both books are very different; in the style, the density of each book, in I the Supreme, the story is around two characters, but here there are three different stories with more characters. Instead of that, the figure of the dictator in both books is very similar. Why? There is like a paranoia in both dictators, rudeness and fear about against everything.
In the comparison with Facundo I wan to write a little bit more; My wikipedia project is about Facundo, so I am reading a lot of this book. In the chapter XIV, there is a phrase that can exemplify the behavior of both dictators: “If you are not with me, you are against me”. This is the synthesis of all the Trujillo’s reactions.
Monday, March 17, 2008
The General in his labyrinth 2
In my last post, I left two important ideas without a good explanation, that because I was not sure about my thesis and I preferred to finish the book before develop those statements. Fortunately, the professor and Ericka understood these ideas, and commented in my bloq, then, I feel that I must develop this post explaining my perception of those concerns that I mention in my last comment.
The last week, I mentioned that I was feeling that Gabriel Garcia Marquez converted Simon Bolivar into a real hero and at the beginning it could be polemic, but let me try to explain why: The connotation that most of the Latin American people have about Simon Bolivar is almost the same; he is a good guy that fight in all Latin America achieving the freedom of a lot of countries. The problem is that we have never learned a little bit about his personal life, his mistakes or his weakness. Therefore, Simon Bolivar was as a myth that survive among the years. Gabriel Garcia Marquez converted Simon Bolivar as hero, when he demonstrated that Bolivar was just a man, with feeling, with mistakes and with weakness. The author took care the history of the general and the thing that Bolivar did in his life, Garcia Marquez did not forget that Bolivar was a reference of the Latin American freedom, but at the same time, Garcia Marquez established that Bolivar was as normal as one of us, he had not superpowers or anything uncommon. Therefore, in my perception of hero and, what I think Garcia Marquez wanted to do, Simon Bolivar took a human image more real and therefore more near to us.
The second statement that I did the last week, was about the perception of the death in the book. Among the story, I perceived that the death of Simon Bolivar was more near page by page… his weakness, his ill, the form in which he was remembering all his life create an atmosphere of death. The interesting point here, is the perception of death that Simon Bolivar had. On one point, he had not fear to the death in all his battles, I think that he was prepared for the final even before his illness. But on the other hand, I perceived that Simon Bolivar was not content with the way in which he pass the last year of his life. The situation in Colombia or in “La gran Colombia” was not what he wished all his life…
The last week, I mentioned that I was feeling that Gabriel Garcia Marquez converted Simon Bolivar into a real hero and at the beginning it could be polemic, but let me try to explain why: The connotation that most of the Latin American people have about Simon Bolivar is almost the same; he is a good guy that fight in all Latin America achieving the freedom of a lot of countries. The problem is that we have never learned a little bit about his personal life, his mistakes or his weakness. Therefore, Simon Bolivar was as a myth that survive among the years. Gabriel Garcia Marquez converted Simon Bolivar as hero, when he demonstrated that Bolivar was just a man, with feeling, with mistakes and with weakness. The author took care the history of the general and the thing that Bolivar did in his life, Garcia Marquez did not forget that Bolivar was a reference of the Latin American freedom, but at the same time, Garcia Marquez established that Bolivar was as normal as one of us, he had not superpowers or anything uncommon. Therefore, in my perception of hero and, what I think Garcia Marquez wanted to do, Simon Bolivar took a human image more real and therefore more near to us.
The second statement that I did the last week, was about the perception of the death in the book. Among the story, I perceived that the death of Simon Bolivar was more near page by page… his weakness, his ill, the form in which he was remembering all his life create an atmosphere of death. The interesting point here, is the perception of death that Simon Bolivar had. On one point, he had not fear to the death in all his battles, I think that he was prepared for the final even before his illness. But on the other hand, I perceived that Simon Bolivar was not content with the way in which he pass the last year of his life. The situation in Colombia or in “La gran Colombia” was not what he wished all his life…
Monday, March 10, 2008
The heroes are Gods? Or the humans are heroes...
The book The General in His Labyrinth, describes, I think, the last days of the most important general in the Latin American history. The death as the final passage of an amazing live full of battles, dreams, adventures and all the characteristics that has a hero´s live. I am referring as a hero, not as the perfect general and politician that fight for the freedom of the South American countries, I am referring as a hero in terms of the human inside Simon Bolivar... the man who loved his continent and fought all his live for a dream.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, in his style, created an interesting, descriptive, illustrative and easy lecture book that represent the general as human, with his defects, his weakness and his strength. A general without all the luxuries that involved the Bolivar´s live in his most important years... now the general was facing his final battle, the last year of his live in which he remembered all the passages of his human life... nor the general’s nor the politician, Simon Bolivar as a human.
I don’t know a lot about the Canadian educational system, but in Mexico, we are used to learn the history as a good and the evil... the Spanish were very bad and Simon Bolivar was a hero without defects. That’s why this book is important for me; it converts Bolivar as a real hero and not only as mythic super hero... It shows us one part of the history that was hidden, but at the end, instead of think that Bolivar was not the hero that I as believing, the book support my idea that Bolivar not only was a good general or a good leader... he was a good man, with a lot of weakness but with a lot of strength, with a lot of defects but with a lot of qualities as me or as all the people in the world.
Other part of the book that is attracting me is the image of the death, but I think that I will clarify better this aspect when I finish the book, so I will prefer to write about that in the next post.
Monday, March 3, 2008
I the Supreme 2
Maybe the hardest book I have ever read in all my life, but also the most descriptive narration about how dictators are and how dictatorships work. The language that Roa Bastos used, can be very confused, but at the same time, only this book can describe the live of a supreme in his thoughts his feelings and his perspectives.
As I mentioned in my last post, I think that the supreme can be adapted to the dictatorships that we have in the actuality. The dictator that Roa Bastos describes, have all the characteristics that the authoritarians government have. The book can be a parody of the supreme figure among the history.
Two days ago, the Venezuelan government threatened to Colombia because the Colombian government made an attack to the FARC in Ecuador. In my point of view, the affected country is Ecuador, then why did Venezuela react in that way?
Maybe we can understand this case with I the Supreme. In the book, Roa Bastos argue that The Supreme has fear about everything; the president thinks that all is against him and all is threaten his power, then he destroys everyone who seems to disagree with him. Does Hugo Chavez have this paranoia?
It is very difficult to talk about the style of the novel; I can describe it as heavy and hard. But I can not distinguish any special characteristic. It seems that the book doesn’t have any story, but then, we can realize that the entire story is a description of the dictator´s life inside his thoughts and his perceptions. However, I find very interesting the reactions of the supreme; it seems that Roa Bastos give us the background of his feelings as a cause of his behaviors. Then, even if the book is very difficult to read, we can understand better all the dictator’s acts because we know what he is thinking.
As I mentioned in my last post, I think that the supreme can be adapted to the dictatorships that we have in the actuality. The dictator that Roa Bastos describes, have all the characteristics that the authoritarians government have. The book can be a parody of the supreme figure among the history.
Two days ago, the Venezuelan government threatened to Colombia because the Colombian government made an attack to the FARC in Ecuador. In my point of view, the affected country is Ecuador, then why did Venezuela react in that way?
Maybe we can understand this case with I the Supreme. In the book, Roa Bastos argue that The Supreme has fear about everything; the president thinks that all is against him and all is threaten his power, then he destroys everyone who seems to disagree with him. Does Hugo Chavez have this paranoia?
It is very difficult to talk about the style of the novel; I can describe it as heavy and hard. But I can not distinguish any special characteristic. It seems that the book doesn’t have any story, but then, we can realize that the entire story is a description of the dictator´s life inside his thoughts and his perceptions. However, I find very interesting the reactions of the supreme; it seems that Roa Bastos give us the background of his feelings as a cause of his behaviors. Then, even if the book is very difficult to read, we can understand better all the dictator’s acts because we know what he is thinking.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Hugo Chavez the Supreme? Or maybe Castro!
First of all, I need to make a suggestion, If someone feel sympathy for the dictators that I mentioned before, please don’t take this article as a personal attack an consider it as a simply opinion.
In order to understand my comment I think that we have to remember some parts of the first chapter of the book: the dictator’s dichotomy between himself and the external world, the authoritarian and compulsive of his personality, the paranoid of his thoughts and the rudeness of his norms.
I the Supreme, I think, is the best description of the dictators that Latin America have nowadays. The different faces of the supreme, can describe the Chavez personality and the maquiavelism of the presidents behavior and the Castro´s dictatorship period.
Hugo Chavez
In 2007 Chavez ordered to close RCTV, the last private TV station that Venezuela had. Among that TV Station, the Chavez detractors were criticizing the government.
In I the supreme, the president has fear of everybody, even the prisoners in the jail or Patiño or all the people in the country. This fear is demonstrated by Chavez; when he started to think that RCTV represented a barrier to his goals, he had fear about the power of the TV and then he decided to close it.
The personality of the president in I the supreme is rude and compulsive. The supreme is always insulting to everybody. Then again, Hugo Chavez is always insulting everybody, the last year he said that Vicente Fox was “el cachorro del imperio” (the United States pet).
The supreme doesn’t have trust in anybody, then again almost all the Chavez employees has been fired, and some of them now are enemies of the president.
Fidel Castro
Maybe Fidel Castro is not as rude or compulsive as Hugo Chavez, but if I think in Cuba, I think in a country that has been in a long dictatorship. The supreme is 84 years old! The Castro´s age!
Then again, all the dictatorships in Latin America have similar characteristics and, therefore, the dictatorship novels can be interrelated. For more information, check the next post!
In order to understand my comment I think that we have to remember some parts of the first chapter of the book: the dictator’s dichotomy between himself and the external world, the authoritarian and compulsive of his personality, the paranoid of his thoughts and the rudeness of his norms.
I the Supreme, I think, is the best description of the dictators that Latin America have nowadays. The different faces of the supreme, can describe the Chavez personality and the maquiavelism of the presidents behavior and the Castro´s dictatorship period.
Hugo Chavez
In 2007 Chavez ordered to close RCTV, the last private TV station that Venezuela had. Among that TV Station, the Chavez detractors were criticizing the government.
In I the supreme, the president has fear of everybody, even the prisoners in the jail or Patiño or all the people in the country. This fear is demonstrated by Chavez; when he started to think that RCTV represented a barrier to his goals, he had fear about the power of the TV and then he decided to close it.
The personality of the president in I the supreme is rude and compulsive. The supreme is always insulting to everybody. Then again, Hugo Chavez is always insulting everybody, the last year he said that Vicente Fox was “el cachorro del imperio” (the United States pet).
The supreme doesn’t have trust in anybody, then again almost all the Chavez employees has been fired, and some of them now are enemies of the president.
Fidel Castro
Maybe Fidel Castro is not as rude or compulsive as Hugo Chavez, but if I think in Cuba, I think in a country that has been in a long dictatorship. The supreme is 84 years old! The Castro´s age!
Then again, all the dictatorships in Latin America have similar characteristics and, therefore, the dictatorship novels can be interrelated. For more information, check the next post!
Monday, February 4, 2008
SPAN312 The President 2
The second half of The President is the most interesting part that I have read in years! Its dramatization and the way in which the story is presented kept my attention for a lot of time and it was no difficult to finish the book. Now I can understand the functions of all the characters that Asturias used and the importance that they have in the development of the book.
I think that the essential part of the book is the story of Angel Face, and as a background we have examples of the practices that the dictator has in order to follow his own wishes. I am impressed of how the net among all the characters has the same direction and how Asturias used all the characters as tools to describe the government.
In this kind of government you have to be careful always, it is difficult to understand why Angel Face didn’t realize the president’s plan. The entire story has the same way. When Canales was blamed when he was innocent, I didn’t understand why, but with the president’s reaction after the Camila’s wedding, it is obvious that the president was in love with Camila. Therefore, I don’t know why Angel Face was thinking that it won’t be a problem to travel to the US.
Why the reference of the US? Perhaps Asturias used this reference to express freedom; Angel Face would have freedom if he went to the United States? It is interesting, because Asturias never mention that he was talking about Venezuela, but at the same time, he mentioned as a reference of freedom the US.
The story is developed in a period short period of time (a week), It seems that Asturias want to express that these practices are very common, as a routine in the government. It was no difficult for the president or for the war minister to do the entire things that they did and it was normal for the system.
The Asturias style is really amazing, the surrealistic tools that he used to make the president’s image, his stylistic resources and the way in which he make his descriptions among the book made me feel like if I was inside the story. It was no difficult to read and, instead of that, all the comparisons and the metaphors that he used help me to imagine all the psychological situations that were involved in the book.
I think that the essential part of the book is the story of Angel Face, and as a background we have examples of the practices that the dictator has in order to follow his own wishes. I am impressed of how the net among all the characters has the same direction and how Asturias used all the characters as tools to describe the government.
In this kind of government you have to be careful always, it is difficult to understand why Angel Face didn’t realize the president’s plan. The entire story has the same way. When Canales was blamed when he was innocent, I didn’t understand why, but with the president’s reaction after the Camila’s wedding, it is obvious that the president was in love with Camila. Therefore, I don’t know why Angel Face was thinking that it won’t be a problem to travel to the US.
Why the reference of the US? Perhaps Asturias used this reference to express freedom; Angel Face would have freedom if he went to the United States? It is interesting, because Asturias never mention that he was talking about Venezuela, but at the same time, he mentioned as a reference of freedom the US.
The story is developed in a period short period of time (a week), It seems that Asturias want to express that these practices are very common, as a routine in the government. It was no difficult for the president or for the war minister to do the entire things that they did and it was normal for the system.
The Asturias style is really amazing, the surrealistic tools that he used to make the president’s image, his stylistic resources and the way in which he make his descriptions among the book made me feel like if I was inside the story. It was no difficult to read and, instead of that, all the comparisons and the metaphors that he used help me to imagine all the psychological situations that were involved in the book.
Monday, January 28, 2008
SPAN312 The President 1
Miguel Angel Asturias is a Guatemalan writer distinguished by his anti-imperialist ideas and by the differences that he made between the poor people and the government. He won the litarature nobel price in 1967 and was a politician in the Guatemalan government, ambassador in Mexico, Argentina and El Salvador. In 1946 he wrote The president, a novel that ridicules the dictator figure, describes the situation of the poor people and the corruption that the government had. The author didn’t mention it in the book, but is deductible that the novel he was referring to the dictatorship that Manuel Estrada assumed in Guatemala at the beginning of the 19 century when Asturias was a teenager.
First of all, the author makes a differentiation between good and evil… Evil is performed by The President, a figure characterized by terror, corruption, tyranny and a system controlled by the force. In the other hand, the light or the good is played by the poor people, the homeless man who was tortured because he didn’t want to lie or Angel Face, who is described as a compassionate individual.
It seems that the most representative part in the first half of the book is the chapter when “Mosquito” dies, that because it is the best example of how the dictator acts in order to achieve his personal goals instead of the country’s goals. In addition, this passage represents the corruption in which Guatemala was living and the situation of the poor people. It also exemplifies the political situation, where the dictator did what he wanted without limits.
The book is confusing because it has a lot of characters who has little contribution to the story, because of that; it was very difficult to read and to understand the roll of all the characters and all the situations. In terms of style, it’s very interesting how this book has some surrealistic parts and some elements that the author used to make fun of the presidents figure.
In the first half of the book it is clearly perceived the denounce style against the authoritarian government’s cruelty. This analysis is about a protest novel that was written among the fantasy and the language. Asturias had a commitment with the history, but he used the surrealistic and poetics forms to develop the argument. However, there are many real factors of the politic and social context which figure out the situation in the Latin American history.
Finally, it is a dichotomy between freedom and integrity. In Mosquito’s death and in the Fedina’s torture, what was more important for them, to don’t lie or to be free? What to do in facing that problem? Nowadays we are capable of been honest free at the same time, but at the beginning of the 19 century, what could have been the right thing to do be true or be free? On the other hand, it is difficult to know if Mosquito or Ferina would have been free is the lie that because they would have had a lot of information against the dictator that could hazard the system.
First of all, the author makes a differentiation between good and evil… Evil is performed by The President, a figure characterized by terror, corruption, tyranny and a system controlled by the force. In the other hand, the light or the good is played by the poor people, the homeless man who was tortured because he didn’t want to lie or Angel Face, who is described as a compassionate individual.
It seems that the most representative part in the first half of the book is the chapter when “Mosquito” dies, that because it is the best example of how the dictator acts in order to achieve his personal goals instead of the country’s goals. In addition, this passage represents the corruption in which Guatemala was living and the situation of the poor people. It also exemplifies the political situation, where the dictator did what he wanted without limits.
The book is confusing because it has a lot of characters who has little contribution to the story, because of that; it was very difficult to read and to understand the roll of all the characters and all the situations. In terms of style, it’s very interesting how this book has some surrealistic parts and some elements that the author used to make fun of the presidents figure.
In the first half of the book it is clearly perceived the denounce style against the authoritarian government’s cruelty. This analysis is about a protest novel that was written among the fantasy and the language. Asturias had a commitment with the history, but he used the surrealistic and poetics forms to develop the argument. However, there are many real factors of the politic and social context which figure out the situation in the Latin American history.
Finally, it is a dichotomy between freedom and integrity. In Mosquito’s death and in the Fedina’s torture, what was more important for them, to don’t lie or to be free? What to do in facing that problem? Nowadays we are capable of been honest free at the same time, but at the beginning of the 19 century, what could have been the right thing to do be true or be free? On the other hand, it is difficult to know if Mosquito or Ferina would have been free is the lie that because they would have had a lot of information against the dictator that could hazard the system.
Monday, January 21, 2008
SPAN 312 Facundo 2
Domingo Sarmiento’s book Facundo, Civilization and Barbarism, is about the civil war in his country and it is a description about the gauchos, one of the ancient civilizations of Argentina. Finale, Facundo died, he was killed in the same way that he used to kill others. He was killed by the person who exemplifies better “barbarism”, who was hidden in the figure of Facundo and was behind all the dramatic situations of Argentina; Rosas.
Sarmiento had many goals in this book. In the beginning, perhaps the author’s main objective is to criticize Facundo and Rosas, but then, it seems that this is not the main idea of the book. I’m almost sure that the Sarmiento’s real feeling about Facundo was not the same that we can find at the introduction of the book. Maybe Sarmiento didn’t know the impact that his book would have had in the Argentinean culture, but he established the reference of Facundo as the best example of the gauchos and of the heritage of his country.
It’s very interesting how Sarmiento tells the story of the civil war in Argentina, and at the same time makes the transition that we can find in the last three chapters of the book, where Facundo is mystified. We can find the real impact that the European migration would have in Argentina and in the Latin American civilization. In Buenos Aires, the civilization’s symbol and the Rosas territory, Facundo was a “civilized” man, with modals and without the power that he had in other parts of the country.
Maybe we can realize that Facundo was transformed by the European migration and that will happen to all society; but at the end, in “Barranca-Yako!!!” Facundo was still the same person. Outside, he was a “civilized” man, but inside, he was the same savage who controlled part of the country and the best instrument of the dictatorship: the fear impersonated.
In the history of Latin American civilization, all the dictatorships had the same characteristics; they establish control in the society by the fear. However the fear was also the best enemy of the dictators, the persons who was not controlled by the authority were the ones who established opposition to the government and fought against the power of the dictator. Sarmiento was not controlled by the dictatorship, that’s why he represented by his words the barrier that Rosas had to establish control in the society, but Sarmiento’s power wasn’t enough to fight against Rosas. In the other hand, Facundo was the best alley of Rosas, Facundo established by his “barbarism” the fear in Argentina, but at the same time, he was the only one who had the power to fight against Rosas. Facundo was the fear of the dictator and because of that he was killed.
When Facundo death, the differences between him and Rosas were established, Facundo is not the best example of “barbarism”, he is the best example of the Argentinean heritage, he is the best example of the gauchos, a civilization that had different vision than the European ones, but they were not inferior as Sarmiento established at the beginning of the book. The real “barbarism” was in Rosas, maybe Facundo was a tool of the Rosas power, but he is not a “barbaric”, if “barbarism” denote less freedom, inequality and injustice, Rosas was the “barbaric” but he used Facundo to protect himself.
There are many goals that the author had in this book, to establish the geographical, historical and social context in Argentina, to explain the national reality, to make a proposal about the European immigration as the solution of the problems in his country and to criticize and to attack the Rosas government. In my first post I said that Sarmiento was using in a bad form the word “barbarism” now I can say that I was in a mistake, the word “barbarism” was used to describe Rosas and his government. Facundo is out of this description, the gauchos weren’t “barbaric” people, they are the heritage of the Argentinean culture and Sarmiento, maybe without knowledge, is proud about this principles.
Sarmiento had many goals in this book. In the beginning, perhaps the author’s main objective is to criticize Facundo and Rosas, but then, it seems that this is not the main idea of the book. I’m almost sure that the Sarmiento’s real feeling about Facundo was not the same that we can find at the introduction of the book. Maybe Sarmiento didn’t know the impact that his book would have had in the Argentinean culture, but he established the reference of Facundo as the best example of the gauchos and of the heritage of his country.
It’s very interesting how Sarmiento tells the story of the civil war in Argentina, and at the same time makes the transition that we can find in the last three chapters of the book, where Facundo is mystified. We can find the real impact that the European migration would have in Argentina and in the Latin American civilization. In Buenos Aires, the civilization’s symbol and the Rosas territory, Facundo was a “civilized” man, with modals and without the power that he had in other parts of the country.
Maybe we can realize that Facundo was transformed by the European migration and that will happen to all society; but at the end, in “Barranca-Yako!!!” Facundo was still the same person. Outside, he was a “civilized” man, but inside, he was the same savage who controlled part of the country and the best instrument of the dictatorship: the fear impersonated.
In the history of Latin American civilization, all the dictatorships had the same characteristics; they establish control in the society by the fear. However the fear was also the best enemy of the dictators, the persons who was not controlled by the authority were the ones who established opposition to the government and fought against the power of the dictator. Sarmiento was not controlled by the dictatorship, that’s why he represented by his words the barrier that Rosas had to establish control in the society, but Sarmiento’s power wasn’t enough to fight against Rosas. In the other hand, Facundo was the best alley of Rosas, Facundo established by his “barbarism” the fear in Argentina, but at the same time, he was the only one who had the power to fight against Rosas. Facundo was the fear of the dictator and because of that he was killed.
When Facundo death, the differences between him and Rosas were established, Facundo is not the best example of “barbarism”, he is the best example of the Argentinean heritage, he is the best example of the gauchos, a civilization that had different vision than the European ones, but they were not inferior as Sarmiento established at the beginning of the book. The real “barbarism” was in Rosas, maybe Facundo was a tool of the Rosas power, but he is not a “barbaric”, if “barbarism” denote less freedom, inequality and injustice, Rosas was the “barbaric” but he used Facundo to protect himself.
There are many goals that the author had in this book, to establish the geographical, historical and social context in Argentina, to explain the national reality, to make a proposal about the European immigration as the solution of the problems in his country and to criticize and to attack the Rosas government. In my first post I said that Sarmiento was using in a bad form the word “barbarism” now I can say that I was in a mistake, the word “barbarism” was used to describe Rosas and his government. Facundo is out of this description, the gauchos weren’t “barbaric” people, they are the heritage of the Argentinean culture and Sarmiento, maybe without knowledge, is proud about this principles.
Monday, January 14, 2008
SPAN312 Facundo 1
The history of Latin America is rich in terms of its culture and heritage. In Latin America, most of the countries achieved their freedom in similar way, and the richness of its history shapes its culture and nationalism.
If we talk about nationalism, we must also talk about art; a colorful way of expressing all the roots and culture of the countries. One of the denominated seven arts is the literature. From the Mexican Octavio Paz to the Argentinean Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, this form of expression has collaborated to form a nationalistic feeling and has been used as a reference of the culture and the ideology of these countries. Literature, as a form of art, takes a picture of the country’s context, in a determined period of time, and describes it with feelings, emotions and ideologies finding in words the best way to create a better society and a better nation… That’s what Domingo Faustino Sarmiento is looking for in Facundo.
In the introduction, Sarmiento describes how Facundo is part of Argentina’s culture, no matter if he is death or not, he is an important component of the ideology and the history of his nation both as a brave warrior and as a savage, who has no feelings but, who was the best example of one of the most important periods in the life of Argentina. On the other hand, we can find Rosas as a tyrant who controlled all his country with Facundo as his best ally.
Sarmiento’s book takes all the references of the country to fight against Rosas and not against Facundo. Maybe, in the fist part, he argues that Facundo is a savage and a “barbaric”, but behind these words we can find that Sarmiento is proud of the gauchos. As he writes, “the way of life of country people, which is the influences their character and spirit” (Sarmiento 52)
There is a contradiction here; we know that Sarmiento was looking for an European migration to Argentina as the solution for all the nation’s problems. However, he refers to the gauchos as barbaric people without civilization. Instead of that, we can find that there was one European migration before the civil war in Argentina… the colonialism.
Therefore, if he thought that Europe had the best civilization and the best culture for his country, what was the reason of the war for independence in which he fought?
I think that the word “barbaric” is not the best way to describe the ancient people of the Argentina; I think he is not describing well what he thinks. He is proud of his culture and of the culture formed by these people. As he argues, “Argentine proletarian with no resources but his own cleverness and ability to guard against all the risks that continually surround him” (Sarmiento, pp. 50)
He describes them as organized people with different functions and with different abilities and that is not what the word “barbarism” denotes.
I am very interested in this book because I think that we haven’t read the best part yet, that is why I think that we are in an introductory part and that we are going to begin the best part of the book soon. Now we have the context, soon we will find the history.
If we talk about nationalism, we must also talk about art; a colorful way of expressing all the roots and culture of the countries. One of the denominated seven arts is the literature. From the Mexican Octavio Paz to the Argentinean Domingo Faustino Sarmiento, this form of expression has collaborated to form a nationalistic feeling and has been used as a reference of the culture and the ideology of these countries. Literature, as a form of art, takes a picture of the country’s context, in a determined period of time, and describes it with feelings, emotions and ideologies finding in words the best way to create a better society and a better nation… That’s what Domingo Faustino Sarmiento is looking for in Facundo.
In the introduction, Sarmiento describes how Facundo is part of Argentina’s culture, no matter if he is death or not, he is an important component of the ideology and the history of his nation both as a brave warrior and as a savage, who has no feelings but, who was the best example of one of the most important periods in the life of Argentina. On the other hand, we can find Rosas as a tyrant who controlled all his country with Facundo as his best ally.
Sarmiento’s book takes all the references of the country to fight against Rosas and not against Facundo. Maybe, in the fist part, he argues that Facundo is a savage and a “barbaric”, but behind these words we can find that Sarmiento is proud of the gauchos. As he writes, “the way of life of country people, which is the influences their character and spirit” (Sarmiento 52)
There is a contradiction here; we know that Sarmiento was looking for an European migration to Argentina as the solution for all the nation’s problems. However, he refers to the gauchos as barbaric people without civilization. Instead of that, we can find that there was one European migration before the civil war in Argentina… the colonialism.
Therefore, if he thought that Europe had the best civilization and the best culture for his country, what was the reason of the war for independence in which he fought?
I think that the word “barbaric” is not the best way to describe the ancient people of the Argentina; I think he is not describing well what he thinks. He is proud of his culture and of the culture formed by these people. As he argues, “Argentine proletarian with no resources but his own cleverness and ability to guard against all the risks that continually surround him” (Sarmiento, pp. 50)
He describes them as organized people with different functions and with different abilities and that is not what the word “barbarism” denotes.
I am very interested in this book because I think that we haven’t read the best part yet, that is why I think that we are in an introductory part and that we are going to begin the best part of the book soon. Now we have the context, soon we will find the history.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
SPAN 312
Hi everyone, I don’t know what to write so, I am happy to be here and I will try to make good contributions to the course.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
