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.
Monday, January 28, 2008
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)
