Monthly Archives: January 2017

For the People or the Monster?

I found both of the readings genuinely interesting and particularly enjoyed viewing the same phenomenon from opposite perspectives.

I was particularly drawn to the personal account of Evita Peron, which was emotionally charged and highly enigmatic. Her wildly dramatic eulogy to her former husband was so moving it reminded me of religious writings or a heroic epic or something (probably because she viewed him as a demigod.) These sort of grand proclamations about the inherit greatness and incorruptibility of any mortal (especially a  political figure) generally come off as very artificial or feigned; but Evita’s passions (however misplaced they may be) were  moving and  surprisingly highly convincing . It is not hard to see that she is manifesting (or reinforcing) a cult of personality but the fervor with which she describes her own adoration of his character feels highly personal and so all the more believable.   That being said, she (consciously?) contradicts herself throughout all of her monologues in simultaneously glorifying and mistrusting and condemning her “people.” It seems to me that the  “people”  she refers to are Peron and those who follow him fanatically. I believe source of both her love and “venom of hatred” (which overtake her writing at many points) to be her fanaticism toward Peron, which she describes instead as a deep suffering for her “people” (by which I assume she means Argentinians.) Her boundless adoration for Peron shows the direct result of his artificial charisma being praised as a direct reflection or representation of his “people” while her closeness to the subject prove just how manipulative and calculated Peron’s public and private personas are.

 

 

 

Readings LAST201 January 16

Eva Peron says a lot of relatable things in very vague ways. It is clear that her message is directed at the oppressed and the working class, but she keeps it vague enough that everybody can relate to her words to some degree or another.
Throughout the long work of writing, she continues to empower the people of Argentina and condemn the elite. While reading her words, i was thinking about an article I read about how Trump is a populist- and yeah, actually you can find a lot of similarities between Eva and Trump’s words. Their style of vagueness and appealing to the people with nationalist ideas, very similar. Although a pretty fundamentally different message. It doesn’t really matter which message you’re pushing to be a populist I guess.
I feel like I can’t have a full opinion on Peronism, because I don’t clearly understand both sides. As it stands, I think that the message the Perons’ expressed, both Eva and Juan, were all messages I stand behind… Like workers rights, and equal rights for women.
I know there is a lot of controversy about “Peronism”- and I assume it’s probably because like with any politician, they have their downfalls. But I just think that having the Peron’s speak and act on worker’s rights and women’s rights and more was a good thing in the 1940s/50s.

As for the second reading – I definitely had a hard time grasping the overarching meaning within it. Don’t really have much to say about it, except that I’m looking forward to getting the in depth analysis in class lol!

second readings

After finishing each of this weeks readings I think I can safely say that I have no idea what is going on. About half way through Peron’s writing I decided to do some research on her and found out a lot about her history and her husbands political career. Reading about her life and subsequent death was pretty astounding especially the funeral procession that Argentina held for her. To be honest I had never heard about her or her husband at all in my life but my quick wiki browsing left me quite intrigued and I learnt a lot about Argentina.

In terms of her writing I did enjoy reading it but after a while it got kind of boring. It feels like a speech and I’m sure that if I had been listening to someone read this in an invigorating and passionate tone (which probably isn’t hard, this piece is very heartfelt in my opinion) I would be captivated and inspired by her words. The messages she sends the people are anti-imperialist and pro workers reform especially in agriculture and industrial setting. Her strategy of demonizing the oligarchs probably won her a lot of favour with the working class that was being exploited.

Reading Borges at 1 am was probably a bad idea because I literally have no idea what is going on. I’m not sure if it’s me fading in and out of sleep but the best I could gather from his writing was that he was expressing opposite views of Peron. Borges achieves this by writing a story of one mans adventures which ultimately lead to the unwarranted death of another. The writing is difficult to follow unlike Perons and provides a ficticous account of the negatives of group mentality in order to critique the followers of Peron.

Of both these writings I much preferred Perons but I will be going back later this week to try and reread Borges. During my readings I learned much about the political history of Argentina in the 20th century and I’m excited to discuss the readings and politics that contextualize the readings for this week.

What is ‘the people’?

In the first story, My Message, there seem to be very clear discrepancies between the people and the others. In fact, the author touches on many extremes, but the most striking is between the concept of outsiders versus her community. She talks about those with an immense amount of power compared to those with very little privilege. She talks about her oppression as a woman being talked down to by men who regarded her as nothing more than an opportunist rather than a loyal companion. As an opinionated piece, this story clearly illustrates a notion of loyalty towards, and an understanding of, the struggles faced by the exploited, the underestimated, the oppressed. There are clearly protagonist(s) and antagonists in her telling of the story. Her people are those that are of strong hearts, with a strong sense of community and nationalistic pride. She mentions one other group – the indifferent – whom she despises because of their lack of interest in all the good that Peron is bringing about. To be truly passionate about something makes it incredibly difficult to understand others’ lack of interest, but I find it interesting that she separates these individuals from her “people”. It seems as though those she considers “the people” are those who share her beliefs and her faithfulness towards her nation and its ruler.

Introduction

Hi

My name is federico angel. I was born in bogota colombia but moved to vancouver british columbia when I was 6 months old. I’ve spent my entire life here in vancouver and it is currently my second year here at UBC trying to major in economics. Im interested in latin american pop culture because i never really got to be a teenager in colombia and i thought what a better way to immerse myself in the pop culture of my country of origin than take a uni course dedicated to that. See you in class!

Reading Response #1

First off, I found both of these readings to be a little unusually written but engaging and interesting to read largely because of that! I found Borge’s piece a little hard to navigate at first until I explored a little more into his background and personal beliefs to get a grasp on the reading a little better.

Perón’s ‘My Message’ read like propaganda that would be recited from a podium in front of a roaring crowd with banners inciting the unification, glorification and strength of the people and ‘the Nation’. The style was relatively straightforward but saturated with passion, theatrics and over the top embellishments and repetition. I didn’t go through and count the number of the times ‘the people’ and ‘the Nation’ were repeated throughout the whole piece, but one or both of those words seemed to appear in every paragraph. There was also an emphasis on the descamisados (literally, the shirtless- the impoverished), on women, on workers to align Perón and Peronism with the majority, to separate themselves from the oligarchy, the ‘others’. Perón describes ‘the people’ as if they were a race, and further, a race to which she and her husband and the protectors of justice, freedom and love belong. The ‘other’ race is a race of traitors, of oppressors and of cowards. There is no in between, no ambivalence of ideals- you are either for Peronism or you are against, and if you are undecided you are as good as the enemy.

When discussing her husband he almost appears as if he is the Wizard of Oz, a mythical defender of the people who would protect them against the winged-monkeys of capitalism, imperialism and injustice. He’s described as grandiose and powerful yet humble, a man of the people but so flawless and revered he is anything but ordinary.

There is also a recurring feeling that not only does Perón and her husband belong to the people, but the people belong to them- as if they are wards of the state. She describes the strength and resilience and passion of ‘the people’ yet speaks almost as if they belong to the Nation and should be willing, in their fanaticism, to die for the Nation. Another way in which Perón’s piece read like propaganda is all the talk about flags, nationhood, liberation. These words come across as very imperialist, space-claiming, yet at the same time Perón is heavily critical of imperialism.

Evita Peron and Jorge Luis Borges readings

I began reading Evita Peron’s My Message this week.  The first thing that stood out to me was the ease with which I could read her writing.  I think that her style ties in well with her message that she is a person for the people; her simple way of writing makes her accessible to larger audiences of varying levels of education.

A few of her phrases also struck me as particularly notable.  On page 57, she writes, “Fanaticism turns life into a permanent and heroic process of dying; but it is the only way that life can defeat death.”  In general, I think her use of the term “fanaticism” is intriguing, since it is a word that can hold both positive and negative connotations depending on how it is used in context.  Evita Peron chooses to interpret the term in a positive sense.  This quote left an impression on me since it presents fanaticism as both the path towards dying and the way of overcoming death, which is rather contradictory.

Her comparison of fanatics, enemies, and those who are indifferent is also worth mentioning.  Peron seems to oppose “the indifferent” more than she opposes individuals who she perceives as “enemies” of the people.  On one hand, this makes sense because at least enemies present stronger emotional sentiments and voice/take action on what they believe.  In contrast, the indifferent show no passion one way or the other.  However, I still don’t think it is logical for her to so strongly oppose the indifferent in reality, since they pose an obstacle to her desire to empower the working people.  While the indifferent show neither support nor threat to her cause, I feel like it is practically backwards for her to speak more negatively towards them than towards those who are active enemies of the people.

In the Jorge Luis Borges reading, I am confused about who/what “the monster” is.  Since Borges writes, “What I didn’t figure on was that member of the opposing team, healthy patriotism”(p. 203), is the monster a dictator of some sort?  While the casual terms that Borges uses make the text more difficult to comprehend (since I couldn’t always tell when he was using one of his own terms and when he was using the real word for something), they also made me smile when I was reading.  Is he supposed to be portraying a particular ethnicity?

Jorge Luis Borges and Evita Perón

Jorge Luis Borges

Borges writes in the format of a conversation. Through the format, broken grammar and vulgar language we are able to get an intimate feel for who this character is and where he is from (even though I had to remind myself this kid was not from the US due to his slang). The piece was confusing in the sense that I did not know the context very well and was slowly uncovering who the character’s were and what they were doing. Having little  knowledge on Peronism and the military acts against Jewish people, this piece was shocking. I am glad that this excerpt was my one of my first encounters with text about this history, as it depicts the depths of the men’s experience within the horrific actions. This excerpt shows how the young men passively struggle with the desire to leave and their newfound obsession with violence. The men both hate and admire their superiors; both want to escape but it seems to have become a game and where else would accept the violence they have become accustomed to? The internal dilemmas of the youth forced into service are clear in the nonchalant, chaotic but thorough way in which the character tells his story to the mysterious Nelly.

Evita Perón

This extract was articulate and passionate  however it was also contradictory and somewhat self centered. I truly admire Evita for her commitment to the people and to change. She represented the voices that were never felt or heard in a system that failed in standing for the people. She opened the eyes to many that felt powerless in the face of oligarchy and preached the immense power of the people and manipulation of the wealthy/government. Although I do agree with many points and aspects that Evita brought to light, I am also sceptical due to her endless love for Perón and her contradictions. I question how much she believed in due to his perceptions of the world. Additionally, this excerpt seems to promote Perón and keep the people on his side even in Evita’s death.

The People

My Message and A Celebration of the Monster chart two different perspectives of the masses and of uprisings. My Message sees the hope and the power within the people, which are necessary to Perón's cause and her movement. Evita Perón does not back away from stating that she hopes to move people to act: “I want to incite the people. I want to ignite them with the fire of my heart.” (30). In her eyes, the people are an important part of the nation and her cause. She relies on the people, on the masses, and she even critiques those who do not join the fight. In My Message, the people are seen as influential and good in the way they provide to the fight, by giving a reason and a cause to fight for. The people, not the elites, deserve to be heard and listened, at least in this text, and this view of the people as good and reliable contrasts with the way that A Celebration of the Monster portrays the people (or the masses).

In A Celebration of the Monster, Jorge Luis Borges follows the perspective of this young man as he joins the fight in support of “the Monster”. In this text, Borges looks at the people critically and appears to be arguing that they are incapable of thinking independently. At the end of the text, a person is killed for no reason, and yet the young men believe that they have done a service to “the Monster” and to the public. The young men sing and chant, believing and following blindly to a cause that seems to value, and encourage, violence and chaos. Borges appears to be that people are easily swayed and convinced, which would mean that the people are not trustworthy because they are reliant on other people to tell them what to think. This text then questions the strength in movements by the people and the integrity of the masses.


A Celebration of the Monster and My Message provide contrasting views of the characteristics of large groups of people, and as a result raise questions regarding how to see “the people”. From one side it seems that the general people can do a lot of good, but from another it seems they can only do bad. After reading these texts, there is no decisive person or group to trust, and so the challenge becomes in deciding whether to follow the whims of the people or the whims of those in power.

The People

My Message and A Celebration of the Monster chart two different perspectives of the masses and of uprisings. My Message sees the hope and the power within the people, which are necessary to Perón's cause and her movement. Evita Perón does not back away from stating that she hopes to move people to act: “I want to incite the people. I want to ignite them with the fire of my heart.” (30). In her eyes, the people are an important part of the nation and her cause. She relies on the people, on the masses, and she even critiques those who do not join the fight. In My Message, the people are seen as influential and good in the way they provide to the fight, by giving a reason and a cause to fight for. The people, not the elites, deserve to be heard and listened, at least in this text, and this view of the people as good and reliable contrasts with the way that A Celebration of the Monster portrays the people (or the masses).

In A Celebration of the Monster, Jorge Luis Borges follows the perspective of this young man as he joins the fight in support of “the Monster”. In this text, Borges looks at the people critically and appears to be arguing that they are incapable of thinking independently. At the end of the text, a person is killed for no reason, and yet the young men believe that they have done a service to “the Monster” and to the public. The young men sing and chant, believing and following blindly to a cause that seems to value, and encourage, violence and chaos. Borges appears to be that people are easily swayed and convinced, which would mean that the people are not trustworthy because they are reliant on other people to tell them what to think. This text then questions the strength in movements by the people and the integrity of the masses.


A Celebration of the Monster and My Message provide contrasting views of the characteristics of large groups of people, and as a result raise questions regarding how to see “the people”. From one side it seems that the general people can do a lot of good, but from another it seems they can only do bad. After reading these texts, there is no decisive person or group to trust, and so the challenge becomes in deciding whether to follow the whims of the people or the whims of those in power.