• Search for:

• Recent Posts

  • The end of popular culture?
  • The LAST Blog
  • Ftubol y telenovelas
  • Transculturacion
  • Mestizaje

• Blogroll

  • French, Hispanic, and Italian Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • SPAN364: Survey of Spanish-American Literature to the 1820s
  • SPAN365: Magical Realism Reconsidered
  • SPAN401: Spanish-English Translation
  • SPAN404: Cinema of Mexico

• Contributors

  • Ana´s blog
  • Andrea Azcona
  • Annabelle693’s Blog
  • annamarieke
  • Cennet Bahcesi
  • Earth Lives Connection
  • El Rincon
  • Javier’s LAST 201 Blog
  • jen gebert’s blog
  • jtraynor
  • kieron_hodgson
  • L@sT 2001 –>PoPul@R CulTuRe iN L@tiN AmErIC@
  • LAST 201
  • Last two-oh-one…
  • Latin American Pop Culture
  • Latin American Studies
  • Latin American Studies 201
  • Lluvia
  • maite’s blog for LAST201
  • Mercy’s Blog
  • POPULAR CULTURE IN
  • Popular Culture in Latin America
  • Posthegemony
  • ree00
  • RF. LAST 201 pop culture in LA
  • Salvador’s Spanish Class Blog
  • Sebastian’s blog
  • Sush Mgush
  • Taylor Cole LAST 201
  • tithflo
  • Tory’s blog for LAST201

Despite being very long, this journal article was by far the best (out of the ones we have read so far). It captivated me for all 101 pages of it. Some of the pages did drag a tad bit but overall I was very pleased with the read.

The parts I enjoy were the ones in which the author talked about traditional cultures not becoming extinct in Latin America but instead becoming the focus of what is different in Latin America as opposed to North America. Most of information about the Amerindians i knew before, as I have been to Brazil, Venezuela and Argentina, which all have the issues with their native populations being extremely poor (as Schelling and William have stated). For someone who has never been to Latin America or studied Latin American culture this section could have proved very useful.

This essay really takes you to those remote locations of South and Latin America such as Mexico and Bolivia among others. I also enjoyed the parts that explained the Cultural traditions and the ways in which they were created. The parts about the colonial powers and religious institutions playing large roles in both the formation and creation of certain cultural aspects of Latin America.

It’s funny when comparing these cultural rituals and histories to my own North American cultural I find some similarities and many differences. This is because the Amerindians here were not so heavily influential into our infrastructure when we were a young nation, and they did not mix as much with the immigrating population. They still too suffered many of the same unfortunate diseases, weapons and slaver as they’re Latin American counter parts. Its funny because when one thinks about specifically North American culture, people think of fast food and consumerism, but when one thinks about Latin America they picture the natives and the rich ancient history that lies within its holdings.

This reading was lengthy and detailed giving a good explanation of the variations in popular culture throughout Latin America. I personally have a limited pot of knowledge concerning Latin American history, and have found myself thus far trying to grasp the concept of ‘Latin American pop culture’ as a lump concept. Indeed there are many shared experiences throughout Latin American development which are dissimilar to the Canadian and American history that I am used to, however each country has a unique past that must be acknowledged. Therefore, I found this article to be an excellent overview of some of the characteristics of different areas that contributed to their specific artistic impressions.

I did enjoy the entire article, however, for the sake of the reader I will discuss only the points that really stood out me.

On page 65, speaking of Mexico in particular, “The promotion of handicraft production benefits both peasants and the state: the former are enabled to ‘feed and keep their family in the village they always felt part of’ and, for the state, ‘handicrafts are an economic and ideological resource for limiting peasant immigration, the constant invasi on of the cities by a labor force which industry cannot absorb and which aggravates already serious deficiencies in housing, health, and education’” I volunteered this year at the fair trade store Ten Thousand Villages, and I feel that handicrafts can be undermined in the field of development. Not only are they of cultural and economic significance, this article also brings up the excellent point that they also have the power to act as a buffer against urbanization while preserving tradition.

On Page 97, the author notes the melding or rural/urban culture infused with transnational culture which is a product of enhanced communications. Whereas the ‘rural areas’ are categorized as a place of ‘pure and authentic culture,’ the cities are considered to be ‘a corrupting and contaminating force.’ However, due to urbanization, the cities now are now injected with rural traditions and act as the hub of international capitalist ideals. Both of these mix together to form a new culture, that is the new emerging Latin American pop culture.

On a more general note, It was really eye opening to see how some of the minor elements in a performance or other art form can have such a profound meaning, that I would not have picked up on if I did not understand the cultural representation it held. For instance the role reversal of the natives versus the Spaniards (– a compensatory effect, Page 62), or the Spaniards festivals in Peru which end in a bullfight to affirm that the ‘fundamental culture is Spanish’ (Page 57). Another, not as subtle, interesting expression is the Brazilian ‘folhetos,’ which value stereotypical roles for women, display those women who defy traditional morality as ‘suffering at the hands of supernatural forces’ (Page 91).

The rest of the article provides great new perspectives and explanations. I am not going to discuss further, because due to my limited experience in this area I am in no place to critique, add, or subtract anything said in the paper. I just thought I would share some of what I took away.

Ok so out of all our readings thus far, this is by far my favorite.  Although somewhat lengthy, I enjoyed every bit of this reading.  Some of it was a little tedious to read but I’d say one out of all the pages  one was tedious, in my opinion.
The thing I enjoyed the most was the fact that the author went into great detail about specific Latin American pop culture.  For someone who has never taken a course on Latin America and who knows relatively nothing about it, this article made it easier to put a picture to a name.
I am so interested in other cultures and have traveled to many diferent places outside of Canada and the US, and Latin America is one of the places I am most interested in visiting and learning about.  I love to learn about the different cultural practices of people far away and relate them to my culture or those I know of.
This essay really brought me to all the little corners of Peru, Argentina and others, places I can only dream about and have.  I really enjoyed the background and the history which really put their different cultural practices in a new light.  I had so many questions about this population of people that just simply learning about their various ideas of pop culture, wouldn’t give me such an in depth view of them but this essay really helped.
After reading this essay, I now have a better idea of what popular culture really is.  The thing that really drove it home for me was how the author explisitly tells us that the ideas of these cultures are imbedded into every day life.  That the meaning of every day life is what is popular culture.  The seemingly mundane aspects of life have incredible meaning in places where such things aren’t so readily taken for granted.  The idea that their history is played out in every day life is a powerful idea.  They use oral and written tradition to pass down onto future generations what they  think are the most important things in life.  The idea that these spoken and written traditions are heavely embedded into their every day lives is important in understanding their way of life.
This essay brought me into their theatre, where history is played out and their songs and music are ways in which they connect with the world around them.  The mere thought of having a dance to celebrate the changing of the year and seasons is an amazing thought that brings the world and human nature closer together.  In a world where we rarely focus on the earth in our daily lives, this culture/s is deeply intwined with the earth and nature.
Their practices do not just bring them closer with the world around them but connect them with the past and future.  Their stories and plays tell the truths of how their political system has come to be, how they have maintained faith and how they associate themselves with the outer world and community.  I love that each word they say, eachsond or dance they perform is full of meaning, spilling over into a culture of people who take this meaning seriously.
I compare it to Western culture due to the fact that it seems we are so much the opposite.  Not ever in my daily life do I truly encounter anything that makes me think, or question (other than school) our current situation.  I am never met by singing people where their words become my own but then if it were my popular culture, I would also be involved.  I don’t have any groups of people I sit with and talk about our world and the way it’s come to be and nowhere are there instruments that are connected to the seasons, that I know of in my popular culture.  I would love it if my reality was presented in a way such as dance, song and profound lyrical stories, then perhaps I would be more inclined to listen.
Instead I live in a world where danc e and music have become so sexualized that it’s often difficult to find a real story in lyrics and I do listen for them. The reason I dream of their ppopular culture practices is that it seems real.  Everything in my reality seems fake, or not tangible.  You can’t go to a hockey game and say that that is our reality and our world passed down from generation to generation, is there nothing else? And if there was something else, would anyone listen? Does anyone even care?
I would love to sit on a mountain somewhere and just take it all in, the nature, the realness of it all.  In a world where it seems most things are based on superficiality, can we actually see the real from the fake?  Now that I’ve finished the reading, I long for other people’s popular culture instead of my own.

This weeks reading of “The Faces of Popular Culture” by Rowe William and Vivian Schelling opened my eyes to new prespectives and ideas of culture in Latin America and what that actually entails. From the beggining of the essay it was evidence the importance that spanish conquest has had on Latin America. The realationship between the mix of indigenous and Spanish culture is interesting to analys. Later, the discussion of current urbanization and ‘economic development’ in Latin America is brought forth. In the essay they referee to a qoute by Taussig’s. “A community can in many ways be affected and controlled y the wider capatilist world, but this in itself does not necessarily make such a community a replica of the larger society and the global economy.” This shows that even with an evolving urbanazation and economic global ‘blending’ and interdependence that individuality does and can exist.  The then go on to talk about Folhetos of which I personally find very intruiging. Its almost as if these poems assist in the binding of culture. Along with folhetos i found the discusion of footbal to be very similair. It seems a though simple things such as sports and poems represent larger cultural situations. That it’s not just footbal but rather a metaphor of which is representative of culture in Latin America. Envolved in this is the extensive popularity of telenovelas in Latin America. It’s as if though again these telenovelas are representative of something much larger. After finishing the reading i came back to the question of what is popular culture in Latin America. I came to the conclusion that there is no conclusion and that there is no definitive answer or definition. Popular culture is based off a continually growing and changing world of which makes it nearly impossible to classify the world culture. The one constant that is attachable to the word culture however is that culture is an individual experience of which is different for everybody and the conotations they attach to the word. Things such as telenovelas and footbal are all stimulators for culture but in the end its how the individual precieves and feels about popular culture that makes it what it is.

What is popular Culture in Latin America?
Creo que definir la cultura popular de Latin America es muy complicado, así como cuando tratamos de definir la cultura y el significado de las personas. El articulo de esta semana tenía muchos ejemplos de lo llamado cultura popular. En lo personal me llamo mucho la atención cuando el autor escribe sobre la aculturación que se da en los bailes, en específico el baile de la Conquista. El darle el poder de asimilación a un baile me parece una muy interesante forma de resistencia. Tener aspectos del “pasado” y “presente” juntos me demuestra la capacidad de los humanos para entender procesos y cambios en la vida diaria. Me pareció bien interesante cuando el autor dice en la pagina 56 que las princesas de ponen lentes de sol como signo de “modernidad.” Este signo de modernidad va más allá de lo Español y de lo Indígena. Los lentes son un elemento de la actualidad y la verdad así como lo dije me parece impresionante como la cultura popular se va transformando y como mantiene la continuidad entre el pasado y el día de hoy.
Otro punto que me llamo mucho la atención es cuando el autor en la pagina 73 escribe que aunque el capitalismo hace que todo sea estándar y haya en todos lados las mismas cosas aun así la gente de cada país y pueblo y cultura le da su propio toque. Cuando leí esta parte se me vino a la mente McDonald’s que aunque hay en todo el mundo cada McDonald’s tiene como su toque por que por ejemplo en México está la Mcnorteña que en mi opinión fue creada por la necesidad de hacer el McDonald’s un poco parte del país y de los gustos de las personas, que igual tiene parte de negocio por que es lo que se vende pero pues después de leer esa parte en el artículo fue lo que se me vino a la mente.
Otra parte que me gusto mucho es cuando el autor escribe de las Telenovelas. El dice que las telenovelas “offer a simplistic analysis of the problem which is posited on the character of certain individuals and not the socio-economic reality of the country which is the real issue.” En realidad lo que aprendí estando fuera de México es que al gobierno le conviene mantener a la gente entretenida viendo las novelas en lugar de pensar en los problemas socio-económicos del país, claro muchas personas se preocupan más por la vida de los de las novelas y así en cierta manera no piensan en sus propios problemas.

I find discussions of the people to be very interesting. Across the globe there are wealthy ruling classes which have some level of control over the masses and there is the rest of the people who are subjected to the decisions of the ruling class. The people are, as Peron says, the working class. The same working class who’s jobs are threatened as a result of bad decisions which led to the world’s recession. Peron describes oligarchies as the cowards who lie for money and essentially sell the happiness of their people. She describes the people who have the power to change lives as being indifferent saying “There is nothing we can do.” Peron also condemns the ideology of capitalist imperialism which forces the people into slavery as it proclaims itself as the defender of freedom. According to this ideology capitalism and the decisions made by the ruling class result in diminished choices for the working class. As the world’s economy is struggling there are even fewer opportunities to work out of poverty. Peron’s language is often extreme but this is merely a reaction to the lack of options “the people” are given. When there isn’t room for anything else it should be expected that the masses will turn to an extreme rhetoric of us vs. them. When the opposing class controls the military and police as the instrument of their will it is expected that the masses would follow extreme leaders. Peron doesn’t advocate the murder of the oligarch class but merely their conversion to “the people,… of our class.” When everyone lives off their own work and not someone elses everone will understand the common struggle. Then no one will want to become an exploiter of others. I liked when Peron talks about hunger as the weapon of imperialism. Scarcity is the means of dividing people across the globe. The working class is forced to compete for low paying jobs instead of the forces which exploit them. Scarcity is seen as a necessity for the capitalist system but this is yet to be determined.

I found Evita Peron’s reading to be much easier to follow than the previous two readings and enjoyed it more, however I did not get who are the people. This reading seems to be very personal, political and emotional. We can take a look at what she thinks about the people, the military, the church, the upper class and other things. From what she is saying, it seems that the people are a just a bunch of lower/working class men and women, “descamisados”, who are ignorant about whats around them and she is the one who will take care of them and she knows whats best for them. She identifies with them and rejects the oligarchy or the upper class and military whom she regards as oppressors of the people. She is a fanatic of the people and of her husband of whom she has nothing but good things to say. However, I think that she goes too far in praising him. Some actually think that My Message was not written by her and by someone else. I like the point she made about religion when she said that religion shoud be “the liberation of the people” however it seems that this is not the case since it has been religion the cause of many wars and people suffering around the world and especially the middle east.

I actually quite enjoyed both of these pieces assigned for this week. Evitas message, I found, was inspiring and poetic.. however not quite realistic. She lumps together the people of an entire nation making emphasis on ‘women.’ She makes bold points about escaping imperialism and exploitation, but she does so by saying that everyone wants the same thing. Of course  the ‘people’ want to be treated fairly and gain dignity, however people are diverse. With class stratification, and hierarchies of power, it would be quite difficult to unite the masses to achieve the same goal.

Most importantly though, I believe the ‘message’ is an important piece for the empowerment of women. She strongly acknowledges the strengths of her husband and the good he has achieved while outlining her parallel abilities. She finds a good balance of showing what women can believe and achieve apart from men while not undermining the power of her husband. Her political ideologies and passion for the people is quite incredible.

‘A Celebration of the Monster’ contributed another interesting perspective of who ‘the people’ are and what they are capable of. Unlike Evitas message, the people are not always the victim downtrodden on by a corrupt power structure. Instead, they are capable of their own evils and selfishness. The writing format was also quite distinct  from Evita’s. Rather than being formal and idealistic, it is written in a way that you feel like you are being told a story and can almost hear the voice of the author.

This week’s readings for the subject “the People” left me with a lot to consider.  Peronism as a political ideology has always been a little problematic for me in that (at least in my perception) its underlying philosophy, while supporting “the people” or the working-class, it does so at the expense of alienating a large portion of the privileged population.  It has always seemed to me that the political ideology of Peronism appears much better in theory than in execution.  The two pieces that we read this week only further contribute to this perception of Peronism for me. 

Eva Perón’s work, “My Message” also contributed to my own conflicted feelings regarding this particular controversial political figure.  Throughout the piece, her description of “the people” and the so-called “descamisados”  leads me to question her motivations for writing such a piece.  Who exactly are “the people” she writes so passionately for?  Obviously she is referring to the “race” of the lower/working-class (as opposed to the elite “race” of politicians, oligarchs, privileged clergy, etc.), yet beyond this huge generalization we get no more information about the identity of these “people” from whence she came.  These generalizations are problematic for me, not only in her use of the word “race” (a social construction in itself) to characterize groups divided by economic opportunity but in her attempt to polarize a broad spectrum of culture, backgrounded, belief, and political alignment.  I find Eva’s message to the people a bit contrived and theatricized; an attempt to unite people for a common goal which  ultimately divides a nation’s population and encourages passion without rationality, political extremists and fanaticism.  While I’m aware that Eva Perón represents a powerful political figure who attempted to represent the under-represented, this “Message” only confirms my previous assessment of her as a calculating, fervent demagogue with quite an agenda.  I’m aware that this is a controversial statement about such a famous figure, but I invite further discussion!  While I have my own impressions, she remains a mystery to me. 

In regards to the Borges piece, I have to admit that it left me a little confused.  Perhaps this is because I’m not totally used to reading Borges in English, or to reading his more political, non-fiction work.  I could probably do with a better understanding of the historical/political perspective for this piece, however I did find some parts very interesting.  I feel that in comparison to Eva’s “Message,” “In Celebration of the Monster” provides a significantly more colourful, complete image of “the people.”  The story creates an almost impressionistic image of (what I believe is) a descamisado, in a violent interaction with non-Peronists.  While the images in this piece are violent and slightly disturbing, they provide much deeper representation of human characteristics and emotion than Eva Perón’s stylized, stereotyped descamisado. 

I feel that both readings for this week, while portraying an extremely specific facet of the Latin American pueblo, give us some interesting material to think about.  These readings show how contentious terms like “the people” are and invite us to think a little more critically about our expectations for the course.  They demonstrate that in studying a topic so broad as Latin American popular culture, we cannot be satisfied with stereotypes and generalizations. 

Las dos lecturas de esta semana fueron muy interesantes por que nos permiten ver dos posturas casi completamente opuestas respecto a una idea o régimen. Por un lado Eva Perón describe en su obra:My message, una postura un tanto radical, en la que idolatra a Perón, reitera su amor a los “descamizados” y a su pueblo. Es aquí donde debemos analizar lo que Eva Perón define como pueblo, el cual señala debe ser lo más importante para el gobierno y el motivo por el cual éste existe, el pueblo está formado por los hombres y mujeres de lucha, por los pobres que buscan mejores condiciones de vida y claman justicia; si bien pareciera un discurso con buenas intenciones, discrepo un poco del concepto de pueblo que Eva Perón describe, ya que creo que pueblo somos todos y cada uno de los ciudadanos de un país, región, ciudad, etc. y creo que ella limita esta definición para quienes apoyan su lucha. Durante todo el escrito hace énfasis en la idea de durante toda su vida de lucha ha tenido que enfrentar a diversos enemigos que en un principio se hicieron pasar por aliados para después olvidar sus orígenes, incluso gente de lo que ella define como pueblo que se dejo llevar por la riqueza y el poder. Si algo debemos reconocer de Eva Perón fue la capacidad de liderazgo que tenía, la facilidad para mover masas enteras de gente y convencer, haciendo uso de recursos como esta lectura, donde siempre esta instando o alentando al “pueblo” a luchar por lo que le pertenece y no darse por vencido. Creo que Eva Perón dejo huella en la historia de América Latina, como defensora de una ideología bien definida y será recordada por su admiración y entrega a Perón.

Por otra parte tenemos la lectura de José Luis Borges, quien es bien sabido que estaba en contra del Peronismo por las ideas que éste implicaba, las leyes, cambios, etc. que dicha forma de gobierno tenía. Además a Borges le tocó vivir todo lo que escribir de dicho tema implicaba como la censura. En la obra describe el gobierno de Perón haciendo uso de comparaciones y un muy peculiar estilo de escribir. Creo que el tener estas dos lecturas fue bueno para tener dos referencias de la época, por un lado Eva Perón que para mí fue una buena líder aunque un tanto idealista en algunos aspectos y a Borges, uno de los grandes escritores de la época.

Good day!

Eva Peron’s article no doubt fits under the category of those political speeches that are written with the intention of uniting “a people”, but only result in the exposition of custom-made fictitious divides. The amount of sentiment stirring within her language supports an “us vs. them” mentality which is further supported by the nature of the words she chooses, a nature that undeniably refers to extremes. These extremes arrive in the form of either symbolic nouns or antonyms, Peron, in her attempt to create boundaries, recruits all sorts of ‘loaded’ jargonincluding “sun”, “sky”, “shadows”, “clouds”, “flying”, “fire”, “flag”, “blood”, “snake”, “vultures”, “toad”, “nightingale”, “enemies”, “joy”, “loneliness”, and the clinchers “hate” and “love”. In her quest to unify, she blatantly exludes certain people from her definition of the “infinite race of the people” which undermines her primary objective. She speaks of the “vanity” and “pride” of those that oppose the views of her husband (and her views as well), and yet for the entire article she entrenches her differences from the ‘typical politician’ by praising herself and her husband (Isn’t that one of the most famous “tricks of the trade”?). It was very challenging to derive any sort of substance from the text when she performs in the very same manner she accuses her opposition of behaving. In terms of initial impressions, her (presumably speaking) style is circuituitous, with constant loopbacks (reminiscent of Sarah Palin, no?) to topics that I believe insults the intelligence of “the people” since the majority of her topics evoke an emotional response, more so than a logical one. The redunancy encountered is best highighted when she speaks of “my authentic truth” (insert a wry smile, or a snort of irony here).
In comparison, Borges’ article was unconventional and greatly anticipated to complement and neutralize all the devices that Peron recruited to identify herself with a “people”. Thankfully his article delivered, providing a believable account of the “humble” that Peron refers to and doesn’t provide a solid description of, as well as revealing the divisive nature of Peron’s definition of the “people” through an interpretive account. Borges’ ability to envision the life of an Argentine in great detail magnifies the flaws within Peron’s speech. The subtle commentary that he applies in such instances as “I didn’t figure on was that member of the oppposing team, healthy patriotism. All I could think of was the Monster and that the next I would see him smilin’ and talkin’ like the great Argentine worker he is” as well as “What a thing togetherness is!” appealed to my fondness of irony.

This week’s readings have to do with different interpretations of “the people”, as expressed by Eva Perón and then Jorge Luis Borges. The two have opposing views of what the people are, and of Perón’s government. Eva Perón’s text is very emotional and dramatic, and it seems like she has a great and genuine love for the people. She considers the people to be the ordinary citizens—the workers, the women, and the exploited. She talks a lot about how when people reach high places in society, then get “dizzy”, overwhelmed with the glamour and the status, but she never let herself get absorbed into this life, and always remained one with the people. She talks about how the government, the military, and the clergy exploit the people, and how the “enemies” of the people are deceitful. She focuses a great portion of her message on condemning the enemies of her husband, and on praising Perón’s greatness as a leader. Although Perón and his ideals are something that she is obviously passionate about, I think she goes too far in her praise of him, as it almost seems like she is blindly following him. The fact that her and her husband’s presidency was labeled a dictatorship by many shows that maybe she actually was not fully in touch with the people, or serving them the way she describes herself as doing. Besides this, there are a lot of things I liked about Eva Perón’s text. I like how she talked about love and hatred, how she never knows which one she is feeling, and that indifference is the worst thing. Passion (whether it is in the form of love or hate) is what stirs the hearts of the people and causes them to stand up for their ideals. I also really liked what she said about how religion should be used to “lift the heads of the people” not used as a tool of oppression to make the people bow. I think her opposition to the corruption of the Church, but her embracement of religion (or spirituality in general) is something that many, including me, can relate to.

Borges’ text had an opposing view to Eva Perón’s text, calling Perón’s presidency as the “Monster”. Borges tells talks about the people revolting against Perón…or at least that’s what I think he is talking about, as I couldn’t really understand what was really going on in the story. I found the part where they stone the Jewish man to death was kind of shocking, especially because I don’t really know why they did that. I am guessing that if they did have a reason for stoning him, it was because he was a supporter of Perón. Judging by this text, Eva Perón would not really be one with the people, as she repeatedly claims she is in My Message if the people are so extremely opposed to her Perón. The two readings seem to be to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, both expressing very extreme views of Perón.

This week’s readings have to do with different interpretations of “the people”, as expressed by Eva Perón and then Jorge Luis Borges. The two have opposing views of what the people are, and of Perón’s government. Eva Perón’s text is very emotional and dramatic, and it seems like she has a great and genuine love for the people. She considers the people to be the ordinary citizens—the workers, the women, and the exploited. She talks a lot about how when people reach high places in society, then get “dizzy”, overwhelmed with the glamour and the status, but she never let herself get absorbed into this life, and always remained one with the people. She talks about how the government, the military, and the clergy exploit the people, and how the “enemies” of the people are deceitful. She focuses a great portion of her message on condemning the enemies of her husband, and on praising Perón’s greatness as a leader. Although Perón and his ideals are something that she is obviously passionate about, I think she goes too far in her praise of him, as it almost seems like she is blindly following him. The fact that her and her husband’s presidency was labeled a dictatorship by many shows that maybe she actually was not fully in touch with the people, or serving them the way she describes herself as doing. Besides this, there are a lot of things I liked about Eva Perón’s text. I like how she talked about love and hatred, how she never knows which one she is feeling, and that indifference is the worst thing. Passion (whether it is in the form of love or hate) is what stirs the hearts of the people and causes them to stand up for their ideals. I also really liked what she said about how religion should be used to “lift the heads of the people” not used as a tool of oppression to make the people bow. I think her opposition to the corruption of the Church, but her embracement of religion (or spirituality in general) is something that many, including me, can relate to.

Borges’ text had an opposing view to Eva Perón’s text, calling Perón’s presidency as the “Monster”. Borges tells talks about the people revolting against Perón…or at least that’s what I think he is talking about, as I couldn’t really understand what was really going on in the story. I found the part where they stone the Jewish man to death was kind of shocking, especially because I don’t really know why they did that. I am guessing that if they did have a reason for stoning him, it was because he was a supporter of Perón. Judging by this text, Eva Perón would not really be one with the people, as she repeatedly claims she is in My Message if the people are so extremely opposed to her Perón. The two readings seem to be to be on opposite ends of the spectrum, both expressing very extreme views of Perón.

I find Jorge Luis Borges a brilliant author. His peculiar writing guides a world of fiction and metaphors into our consciousness that naturally builds up in a complexity of cultural and political inferences. The short-story ‘A Celebration of the Monster’ depicts the dichotomies of the political unrest of Argentina during the Peronism period through the lenses of a narrator that is a labourer and convict peronist. The story is a letter to Nelly telling the experience of this young participant in ‘a regular civic demonstration’ (pg.202) followed by Perón’s discourse. I find that the young labourers, in this case, represent the people that were followers (in the clearest meaning of the word) of Perón, in its majority, the people from the countryside and outskirts of Buenos Aires. The migrants, or early-settlers, of the cosmopolitan and european characterized Buenos Aires, found in Perón’s populist discourses a buffer and ideology to hold on to.

While the popularity of Perón was definitely passionate and enthusiastic, the masses, as portrayed by Borges, were also driven by violence and lack of dialogue. Borges depicts the weaknesses of peronists as a social monstrosity in both physical and critical capacities. The strength of peronists might have been the very quantitative character of a homogenous mass, in which the peronist ideology and emotion were maneuvered through rhetorical discourses. The passage where the young labourer writes about the encounter with a jew is a good example of the irrationality in actions combined with the notion of conflict based on the dichotomy country-city. By this I mean that the young jew, likely a student hence the books he held in hands, doesn’t necessarily represent the jews as religion followers only (even though there is actually a large jew community in Buenos Aires), but also as the anti-peronists largely represented by the intellectual minorities with ideals based on critical thinking. The young jew expresses his aversion to Perón, an act of civil freedom of speech that is taken by the young Perón followers to the extreme by beating him up to death. Borges is also portraying the relationship between the peronist and anti-peronist civilians, and the conflict in cultural and political ideologies that are related to the country-side and the cosmopolitan Buenos Aires.

In ‘My Message’, by Eva Perón, her nationalist and populist discourse, based in deep and personal emotions, gave me a sense of extreme naiveté. I definitely don’t know enough about her endeavor in the political and social sphere beyond this reading, however, I see it as romanticized performance. Despite her inclusiveness to her people I feel Eva Perón chose to write and talk, more than live her beliefs (I take the pictures at the end of the readings as a source of Eva Perón’s life). I see the peronist movement as being more disruptive than constructive of a civil and democratic society. However, I have no major understanding of the political unrest of the time, but I think that my previous familiarity with Borges metaphorical language spoke to me more intensively than the repetitive and loosen words by Eva Perón.

While I was reading Eva Peron’s “My Message” I couldn’t help myself laugh a bit, not because I’m mocking her writing but because I’ve heard this perception of the people from many (especially politicians) over the years. “El pueblo” (as I’m sure this was Eva’s direct translation of “the people”) is conceptualized as a “race” of people which is characterized by having good moral values and being hard workers however they are exploited by another race, the oligarchs who are totally opposite to the people. Basically, the concept of the people to Eva Peron is very similar to that of politicians today try so hard to relate with; the lower working class. Eva’s use of metaphor to distinguish the people as a race is a very interesting one. She repeats this word in order to distinguish between the people and the oligarchs, since a race is composed of distinct specie that shares distinct characteristics. This basically means that since they both come from different races (oligarchs and the people) they are totally different. As different as salt is from pepper. However I do not agree with this notion since I find it very idealized.

Borges writing was interesting since it posed a totally different perspective from that of Eva’s people. As I was reading it I tried to place it in a historical context, but I wasn’t able to pin point an exact date or event. However, my best deduction is that it was at some time during Peron’s presidency, and that “the Monster” was not the army, rather a nationalist group. Regardless I found this reading quite interesting since it presents another characteristic of the people. In a way, I think Eva sees the people as been just plainly being black or white, while Borges sees the other colors of the people. These colors were not so beautiful, since it described a more violent and evil aspect of this “race” that Eva didn’t. And that is why I believe Borges account is more realistic than that of Eva’s, not because I’m saying that the people are more violent, simply because if you are assigned a particular group or race it is not a guarantee that you’ll behave accordingly with their set norms. Eva did not acknowledge that in her people race there are going to be undeniably some rotten apples, and in the oligarch race there are going to be some good apples. As I said, not everything is black or white, especially us humans and our behavior; we are much more complex than that.

Who are these people that Eva Perón loves so much that their suffering causes her pain? According to her, they are the women, the workers, the poor and the humble; and she loves them all, for they are “her” people. To Eva, the wife of former Argentinean president Juan Perón, these are the people who represent the real spirit of the country; so much so that she identifies with them to a far greater extent than with the people surrounding her in her role as the wife of a president. She describes herself as “a humble woman from the country…who would not let herself be dazzled by power or glory”; however, to an outsider, she appears to be living a life far removed from that of the average working class. To a certain extent, Eva herself seems to feel that her words are incongruous with her own life; she defends herself by saying that although she too “wore all the honours of glory, vanity, and power”, and accepted graciously everything that was offered to her due to her status, she still guarded her heart and remained true to “her” people.
To me, the most interesting thing in “My Message” is that Eva seems to divide an entire population into two neat categories. Firstly, there are those people who support Perón; to her, these are the ordinary people of Argentina, the only ones who are passionate enough to be willing to die for their beliefs. The second group consists of the people who are against the president; they are described as being influential and generally of higher social status, and stand for everything imperialistic.
“My Message” is a passionate statement from a woman whose entire life’s purpose was to support her husband and help him carry out his vision; while reading, I was astounded by the conviction and dedication with which she approached her self-appointed duties. Whatever your opinion is regarding the validity of her declarations, there can be no doubt that her commitment.

The two readings for this week represent two very differing views. The first one, by Eva Peron, Juan Peron’s extremely devoted wife, supports Peronism to the point of almost deifying Peron himself. The other, by this guy Borges, is very critical of Peron and his regime, referring to him as ‘the Monster.’ Both touch on the question of ‘who/what is the people?’ but, again, in different ways.

Mrs. Peron’s manifesto ‘My Message’ talks a lot about ‘the people.’ She differentiates ‘the people’ with the elite ruling class (corrupt politicians, selfish clergymen, etc.), but also referrs to them as ‘all the world’s exploited people,’ and as ‘women…workers, and the descamisados’. ‘The people,’ in her eyes, I suppose, are everyone that is not in a position of power enough to effectively exploit everyone else. It is obvious that her intended audience is exactly who she defines as ‘the people.’ Her writing is deeply rhetorical. It is structured not unlike the Bible and she works hard at establishing a reputation with the reader as a Jesus-like figure, even mentioning and drawing comparisons with him. She also plays heavily on what must have the been the general feeling of discontent of (who she calls) the people in Argentina in the 1950s. “I can now say how much they lie, all that they deceive, everything they pretend.” The entire piece comes off as propaganda, especially in her blatant contributions to what can be called nothing less than a personality cult of Mr. Peron. Her over-generalizing definition of ‘the people’ is a good way to mobilize a large group of distressed people and nothing more. It reminds me of Mussolini.

Borges little story is in disagreement with the Peron regime, and with Evita’s quasi-fascist definition of ‘the people.’ Maybe it’s just my head after a long day of classes, but (tonight at least) Borges writing style seems a tad foggy–almost reminds me of Thomas Pynchon. He doesn’t so much give us a certain definition of ‘the people’ as he shows us that ‘the people’ can’t simply be taken as a singular entity. Eva Peron speaks of freeing ‘the people’– the Jew who is killed in the story is a representation of a part of society under Peron’s regime that very much less than free. Is he not part of this singular group of ‘the people?’ And, for that matter, is Eva, isn’t Juan himself? It seems to me that ‘the people’ can be taken for nothing other than exactly that; the people.

I found Evita’s article to be quite touching. She was once a powerful woman but now as she gets past that phase in her life she wants to give her country and people one last gift, TRUTH. She talks about how much people lie in politics. Her word choice is optimal and the article flows very nicely. She goes on to talk about her husband and their relationship, with each other and with politics. She compliments him saying that he was also like her, fierce, fiery and most of all passionate. She did however find he a little bit too cocky. Peron talks a lot about the ‘people’ of Argentina she is trying to show that even though these people are separated by economic and social status (especially the poor) they all have a common goal for Argentina as a whole. Peron`s views on the future of Argentina are optimal, but at the same time I feel very unrealistic. Although if it were anyone to unite the people in Argentina it would be Evita Peron, and in order for the goals she listed they must be united. Only when as a society a country wants better for itself and to achieve justice, freedom and equality can change really happen.

Unfortunately for myself I don`t know a lot about Argentina during the time that this article was published. It really showed the “Monster“ , and how the people can sometimes be the enemy. In this case the people are the army. Much of what he said reminded me of military totalitarianism that was prevalent during the most wars. I found it interesting that both these authors have opposing opinions to one another. They both also feel that they are doing the right thing, so which one is right? It is hard to determine. On the one hand people like Peron, believe they are doing right, but others may views them as reckless leaders that are only thinking of their own personal gains.

Eva Peron’s “My Message” was an amazing essay! I thought it was passionate, insightful, real, and surprisingly easy to follow. She talked about fanaticism for the people and her country and I believe no one could be more fanatic about her people, her country, and most importantly about Peron, then Evita herself. She heralded her husband for being a servant of the people when he didn’t have to, as he was born into the Oligarchy and a life of wealth and status. My perspective of  of Evita’s political ideology is somewhere between communist and liberal socialist, although I would lean toward the latter. She talks about how the people are both entitled and honored by being “workers” and that there shall only be one class of citizens. For the most part, I found this essay to be an interesting read, Evita is an extremely strong woman no doubt, and it shows in her writing. I also really enjoyed her section on religion and agree that “religion should never be an instrument of oppression for the people” (Peron, Pg. 77). Unfortunately we see that religion is far too often the root of oppression for people all across the globe both in the present day and the past. 

Concerning Eva Perón’s text, I would like to highlight three main points. First of all, to define what she calls “the people”, “her people”, she uses a specific lexical field choosing terms such as “race” of the people, or “blood” of the enemies. This gives us an idea of a bounded community, potentially defined by a racial criterion. More than anything else, the people is defined by opposition to a threatening other, and distinguished from its enemies, which would explain the racial reference. I would personally moderate the meaning of the racial aspects of her discourse in the sense that she also suggests that anyone could become an enemy of the people, implying that belonging to her people is mainly the fact of being committed to its cause and willing to be part of it. Another and more important element is the actual assimilation between the people and the working class (which also means the poor, the oppressed and so on). Her text does give the impression that the whole nation should become part of what is truly the Argentine People; the workers. There is her socialist trend, but she insists on distinguishing her from Marxist radicalism. Her Message is particularly impregnated with the social doctrine of the Church, given her concern for poverty and her will to share her people’s pain.

She constantly emphasizes how much she loves her people and advocate for the convincing idea that everything should arise from the people and work for its well-being. She establishes the people as the primary source of power, an idea which constitutes my second point. Her rhetoric allows us to think of a democratic inspiration. She condemns any imperialism and stand up for the sovereignty of nations. Once a nation independent, she claims the importance of putting the people’s will at the centre of every political decision. She asks for elections of leaders and accuses oligarchic powers, especially the hegemony of military and religious high circles in Argentina.

This leads us to my third point, her view of fanatism. According to her, fanatism should be living in anyone who embraces the people’s cause. She condemns all declared enemies and all those that would be driven by selfish concerns rather than the people’s well being. Rather than serving their own privileged interests, religion and the army should be executing the people’s order. She completely despises anyone that would be indifferent to the people’s future, and would neither be an opponent, nor a defender of the people. To her this question is fundamental! She has a very virulent, passionate, and emotional way of expressing her commitment. Her discourse is clearly radical. She uses strong and violent words. She is also a profound hoper concerning the good fate of her people and she is obviously deeply religious, a fact which is confirmed by Dominguez.

Of course, at the first glance, her text appears as full of good intentions! However it is important to have a critical mind and think about the historical reality of the social and political movement she supported. To me, My Message presents numerous ambiguities and contradictions. She seems to be entirely dedicating herself to her people and her discourse is obviously very populist (people versus elite). Unfortunately the World have often observed that populist leaders also often tend to be demagogue because they use the people’s needs to win the power. I think that the distance between ‘doing what the people wishes’ and ‘saying what the people wants to hear’ is very thin. For instance, Eva Perón starts a kind of anti military speech or condemns very strongly every enemy of the people. However she also tries not to be too revolutionary in order to insure popular support. She seems to fear the consequences of her attacks against historical institutions of the country such as the army or the clergy. Similarly, she condemns ambition but her writings seem to describe her as an ambitious woman, very confident in the way she gives her life as an example.

All of this is particularly ironic coming from someone who evolved in the highest circles of the Argentine society. She wants to stand by her people but I really doubt she had never been one of them, despite what she said. The last thing that striken me was her deep admiration and unlimited devotion towards Perón. Although she was apparently really influent within the worker’s movement, all her fight and all her convictions were primarily coming from the man she loved and his own doctrine. Actually, it seems that she had the same profound faith in their charismatic leader as anybody else that supported Perónism. There is the huge contradiction of these regimes I try to criticize here. They claim the people’s power against the hegemony of the elite but everything lies on one man’s shoulders. This situation definitely put democracy in danger!

I am glad we had these two articles to compare because the second one is a fantastic denial and critic of Eva’s vision. Although I do share her socialist inclination, the generosity and the promises of her discourse have a blinding effect. Perón have been supported by the majority of the population during a long time, however populism often mask the reality of regimes that usually need a military order and a doctrinal homogeneity to survive. I would not dare to make such hypothesis concerning Perónism however the least we can say is that they was an opposition in Argentina. People such as Borges have known censure and political isolation. With his text he suggests that there was certainy an authoritarian and indoctrinating aspect of the regime. Indeed, Perón has been very controversial and also very harsh towards any kind of opposition. Borges helps us remind the downside of the regime. I am very sceptical towards populist discourses; I have always felt that they were speculating on the people misfortune, promising anything to reach the power. However, it is more the rhetoric than the famous Evita that I tried to criticize. I am sure she really was concerned with her people, however she was also really idealistic.

When I found out that our reading for this week were selections from Eva Peron and Jorge Luis Borges, I was very excited. Having read two short stories by Borges before, Emma Zunz and The book of sand, I thought I was prepared for this piece of writing. I had forgotten the need to be on my toes when reading his work, its definitely not something to be glanced over. I loved and was frustrated by the narrators manner of motor mouth speaking. Some great phrases came out “skinnier than the slot you put the nickel in” and “ I got all tangled like a squid in the sleeves…” however it was work to follow along with the narrators jumpy thought process and scattered retelling. On the other hand I think Borges really captured the nerves and anticipation felt by this “patriot” along with the relief commands can bring, “A gray-haired Indian came out, and it was a pleasure how he bossed us around…”. Furthermore the instant camaraderie that our storyteller feels with the rest of the “gang” , even though they make constant reference to his large belly, put disgusting things in his mouth and overall trying to leave him behind. Not to mention the monster himself, mentioned numerous times in an ironically positive style, who seems to be the leader of all the goings on. Or given the setting for this story one of the Argentinean government officials responsible for the coup. Which brings me to the final speech of Eva Peron entitled My Message, I found it extremely passionate if not moving in my first reading and continually enthralling in my second. Despite the contradictions and somewhat black and white point of view, I found myself rooting for Peronism and for Evita even in her final hours. Its evident that the admiration and love she had for the colonel was not only bountiful but enduring through all time. I can’t imagine having the drive not to mention the energy to spend hours dictating a final message to the people, at the same time as uninhibited in style as this was. Eva made it crystal clear what she thought of the oligarchy and middle of the road type supporters. She promotes a very strict your with me or against me doctrine that to a certain extent I can get on board with. I believe based on this reading the Evita really was for the people, the workers, the “descamisados”, especially near the end when she speaks of her possessions going towards programs to benefit the needy whilst still attributing the any wealth she does have to the people also. In the end I was found both readings exceedingly interesting and much easier to get through than the first pair.

I will like to start this post quoting one of the most outstanding lines of the paper: ” Fanaticism is the only force that God gave the heart to win its battles”. I feel like the first is very political and how that environment affects people, and she established a difference between the people and the liars, and how they are move just by envy, and also how this people would never be the leaders of the people, because in order to do that they should be fanatics of the people. Also the author feels disappointed and mad about how all people are liars, and she knew about lies, because she was married to a president, but not necessarily because he was a liar, but because of the environment she was involved. She also feels like a responsibility to tell the world about these lies. Even though she felt like she lived in a world of lies, she always admire and respect her husband, and would follow him where ever he would go. Because of the life she was living, she was always surrounded by people that would lie to take advantage of some situations, and because of that her will was been washed away, so that she wont believe in some people anymore. She believes in the people, or what she called the people, because they are truthful, they have heart and ideals. She always stood for the people, and that people is Latin America, being oppressed and exploited by the Imperialist, mainly USA. She wanted que la voz del pueblo fuera escuchada en todo el mundo, dando un grito de lucha por la justicia y libertad! For Peron, people’s happiness comes first, because if people are not happy, then a country can’t be great. I also feel that they use a lot the principle of democratics, the voice of the people, and how the government should really reflect that and be a government of the people, for the people and by the people. Even if it has a valid argument, I feel that after a while the text becomes monotonous and redundant, going over and over again on the same idea: How the people must fight, must not become sell outs, must want to be listened so they wont be opressed and mistreated by “the others”. I don’t really get the second one, it was kind of confusing and couldn’t get the main idea, but I feel that the idea of the people is like any random person, any average joe, the country people, just living an ordinary life, but the characters of the story didn’t seem that ordinary, but still they were not part of the oligarchy.

• 

• Categories

  • Administration
  • Arguedas and Asturias
  • Bellos and Hippolyte Ortega
  • Campbell and Taussig
  • Garcia Canclini
  • Gomez Peña etc.
  • Introductions
  • Ortiz etc.
  • Overview
  • Peron and Borges
  • Responses
  • Review
  • Rowe and Schelling
  • Vasconcelos and Wade
  • Williams and Keesing

• Recent Comments