Category: Peron and Borges

The concept of ‘the people’ is complex and may have very different meanings to different people. Like the concept of ‘culture’ it is something that may seem straightforward at first, but is multi layered and loaded with many different interpretations. In Eva Peron’s ‘My Message,’ she speaks to the people in a reflective manner looking back on her high profile time in the political world. She also looks to the future and explains her hopes and aspirations for her beloved people of Argentina. Peron paints a portrait of collective identity that is often defined by suffering, struggle, and the corruption of power. In this sense of collevtive identity, she aims to identify herself as one of ‘the people’ who understands their struggles, as opposed to an elite merely looking down upon them from a high position in society. She seems to be speaking most strongly to the people who are disenfranchised and pushed to the margins of society; a group that may be powerless individually but incredibly strong in numbers. Much of what Peron speaks about is a sort of power struggle, between the elite who have concentrated power and use it for furthering personal self interest, and the rest of society which falls victim to this power when it is flexed self serving ways. Her ideal of ‘the people’ is a mass of people who work collectively to further the good of society and together, and can become stronger than the individualistic and oppurtunist elite in control. She speaks idealistically about how power corrupts and how this power often comes at the expense of the better good of the collective ‘we’. Peron’s message is positive as it aims to empower the masses in a society that has been marked by extreme concentration and exploitation of power, however it is interesting that she is in fact writing this from the perspective of a person in a high-class position of great prestige. I do not know much about her, but from I what I do understand is that ironically, she was labelled by many as an oppurtunist or social climber, though this may also have to do with the fact that people were uncomfortable with a woman in a position of social power. It is also interesting, that as a women, she aims to empower other women and advocates for them, however constantly referes to herlsef in a subserviant role to her husband. Peron’s style of writing was very extreme, but I think that despire the controversy around her, her message was overall, very empowering. It is rare to find a politician or person in a position of social power who legitimatley advocates for ‘the people’ over serving themselves first. It is also rare that a person in this position would be so willing to discuss the dimensions and inequality of power and oppression that exist within society.

The second article was also interesting and offered a differing view of the people. I feel that I would take more away from this article if I had more knowledge about the political situation in Argentina during this time. I know that the Peron’s were populice leaders who were controversial and both loved and hated by the country, but without knowing much more beyond this, it was a little difficult for me to understand exactly the perspective of the person writing. I am also interesting in discussing further the symbolism of the Monster.

The “exploited people”:

As we saw with Williams, culture is ordinary which it means that culture is made by people, but which kind of people? A nation is an heterogeneous group of people, a nation is made of different social classes. In My Message, Eva Peron keeps speaking about “her” people which means the Argentineans but especially her sustainers, the Peronist ones. She keeps claiming universal messages such as solidarity, togetherness or social cohesion but we do not really know to who she is speaking to: which people does she describe?  “Her” vision of the people is a very including one but by reading her message, she creates divisions and categories: the workers, the women but also the people’s enemies like the oligarchies, the clergy and the ambitious. Her discourse is not balanced: there are the people’s enemies and the people’s defenders but her conception of the people’s defenders is very restricted to the Peronist.  She seems very close to the people: she speaks about sleeping, living with the people. On the one hand, she’s totally devoted to the people but on the other hand she seems also very populist. Obviously she does not have the same living conditions that the majority of the Argentineans and she wants to describe herself as non ambitious but she has been animated by a certain ambition before reaching the power even. To be ambitious could be a very good quality and does not mean necessarily to think only about its own interests. I do not really like her way to create special categories and to extract herself from others. She seems wanting to be so close to the people that her discourse becomes not credible so that we could wander which people does she target?

The ”people-target”:

The people could also be a target.  She wants to win over the people by erasing the frontier between the people and the politicians but this frontier is normal. The politicians are the representatives of the people but they are not the people. It is not a mirror representation but a representation by delegation of power.

An imperfect people:

The text written by Borges is the opposite.  He describes some people who do not like Peron and its regime. They do not manage to identity, recognize themselves in Peron’s speech. They are very skeptical and ironical with the notion of “togetherness”.  At the end of the text, they kill a Jew, this murder is the symbol of the total disunity of the people which is totally opposed to Eva Peron’s speech about unity and solidarity. Borges’s text describes an Argentinean people which seems more real. Contrary to Eva Peron’s speech he emphasizes the people’s flaws that’s why for me his description of the people seems more realistic and convincing.  

What is the people?
After Reading the two articles for this week I started thinking how difficult is to define the meaning of “people” that formed a society, in this case the people of the Argentinean Nation. I do not think that is fair to attribute ideas and actions of the people of this society just to one factor. I believe that the combination of external and internal factors is what shapes the behaviour and actions of the people. In “My message” of Eva Peron one could see that even though she had experiences with the upper classes and we could say that she benefited for being part of that elite she went against the flow of the river and she fought for the working people and women. On page 50 Eva writes that “Because no one who left the people take my path ever went back, They were dazzled by the marvellous fantasy of power, and they remained there to enjoy the lie” and I agree with this thought because most of the people once they have power they do not anything to change things to benefit others. I think that Eva´s passion made her strong and that is why she was able to speak out.
In the second reading there is the testimony of the guy that is part of the Argentinean army. This article made me think of the people that also joined Hitler’s army. I am not saying is right but I think that under certain pressure at that time and nowadays people have two options to be part of the governments “movement” or to be against it, and in order to be against it people needed to be very courageous because it is very hard to go against the flow of the river. The guy even describes the Argentinean army as the monster so I think he was not in it because he really wanted, but at the same time he did not do anything not to be part of it.
It is interesting to see that both were aware of the issues that were affecting their country at that time. Eva fought for what she thought was right even though she knew many people would not like her. It is even more interesting that she was a women and she did not assume the “role” that women had and still have( I would say even thought things have changed still there are some role expectations for women). In one class last semester we saw how Rigoberta Menchu also went against of her gender expectations and showed that she was a very brave woman. To be that brave is psychological only expected for men. Women tend to be “fragile” in the mental constructions of societies, when in fact that is not true and those two women proved it. On the other hand, the guy just acted the way he was “expected” within the social context of that time.

After reading both articles I thought to myself to which one I prescribed to more.  I thought at times I truly feel part of a greater thing, being part of a people but at other times, I love the quiet and can’t imagine living in a loud, populated environment.
I love Evita Perons view as she is someone with a certain amount of power and yet she truly thinks of herself as a lower class.  She findsher strength within the people, all people of Argentina, even those who are poor and have little to offer but faith to something greater.  I love the thought of a belief in something greater than oneself.  I enjoy the idea of finding strength in numbers with people who all have the same common beliefs and values.  I really got a picture of strength from Evita’s message.  She truly portrays someone who deeply cares about the people she is serving, or helping.  She denounces all the people who are against the poor people and any person who falls for wealth and power.  She defines wealth in the form of the people of Argentia, the people who believe that they can make a change and control their destiny.
Any ordinary person can find strength and understand what she is saying, as we are also ordinary.  We the people create our own reaities and the environment around us, which in turn creates the world we live in.  I find Evita’s message very empowering as she speaks to the lower levels of society, the people with all the heart and soul of the Nation.  She is sincere which helps bring her closer to the people in every aspect of society as they start to believe and find strength in her words.
The second reading was not as much so cut and dry.  His essay was busy and seemed filled with anger and resentment for the people around him.  It seems as though all he wants to do is flee from his current situation but he is kept to still tell his story.  It seems he is constantly making fun and putting down the people around him as lesser beings in the grand scheme of things.  He calls them by nicknames always punting out their faults as people.  This reading shows another side to the people.  It shows the horrible side of togetherness, the confining aspect of it.
Both readings speak about freedom in different ways.  Evita is searching for the freedom for her people and the second reading seems to be constanly trying to get freedom, to escape the constancy of the people.  Both shows freedom in a different light, the achievemtn of freedom with or without the help of the people.  It kinda shows us how freedom can be achieved no matter what you believe in. I found the second article interesting in the way he was writing, busy, all over the place at times confusing, which seems to me how a busy metropolis of people would be.
As both these article talk about people in different ways, I am more inclined to feel warmth and comfort and strength in Evita’s message to the people.  I am a huge fan of bringing the poor up to a place of power, and I truly believe that power and strength do lie within the people, which brings a smile to my face.

I think that Mackenzie’s description of culture as ordinary makes sense in the context of why people come together and pay attention to each other. Human beings need each other, for survival as well as self-awareness and expression. Mackenzie believes that societies are made by finding common meanings and directions. I interpret common meanings as common feelings. Hope, fear, happiness, and loneliness are things which we all experience. I especially like his analysis of education as ordinary and the emphasis of removing restrictions like money. It’s an interesting idea that societies can move beyond the limitation of a maximum fraction of people cable of profiting by a higher education. It accompanies Mackenzies interpretation of an expanding culture which makes room for what he calls “bad” culture. Lower forms of art like television are a given as it is easier to distribute it and there is more leisure time to receive it. It does not necessarily destroy older less commercialized mediums of expression. I don’t believe it necessarily separates classes either. What it does is causes the audience to be interpreted as an unknown mass, the unknown. Higher culture has an intended audience which fits the niche of a socioeconomic class like museums or theaters. I believe that if education were less restricted the barriers which seperate different mediums of expression would be seen by a greater audience of individuals as opposed to an unknown mass.

Hello internet, how’s it going? My name is Andrew Matasovsky and this is my first blog. I’ll give you a quick synopsis of my life story so you know where I’m coming from. I was born in 1988 to a construction worker and a freelance writer in Minneapolis, Minnesota. I grew up in Minnesota and I traveled to some places. I’ve been to seven other countries and I lived on an island in the middle of the Pacific Ocean for a while. Now I live in Vancouver and go to the University of British Columbia. Music is my favorite passion, but I also enjoy art and any kind of comedy. The year 2009 has just begun and it feels like a good year, possibly the best time around the sun.