The Argentine process of independence was quite different from the rest of Latin American countries. The non dramatical separation of the European colonies as the ones of Mexico or Central America causes a defiant reality between those who wanted to preserve the culture of the nation and the ones who were looking forward to an European immigration as the best form to create social development.
In the pen of the author and in the power that it suscribes to Facundo, Sarmiento strongly supported the theory of the European migration as the path to success and imitation of the Western "civilized" countries but on the contrary is Facundo the one who preserves the Argentinian culture and encourages authors from all Latin America to empowered their roots and beliefs against the ones who want to supressed them.
Sarmiento describes in the first chapter the Argentinian geography, giving a hint of what maybe the core of the conflict relying in the multiculturalism aspects that make this land worthy to fight.Assuming the author´s pride of the land in which he had born.
Reading the other chapters the core of the book intself changes to explain the figurative sense of Barbarian. Not as an animal, or salvage human being but more over in the strenght to confront and mantain its cultural heritage. Sarmiento did know the final purpose of this book, which was in a hardly dispute with Rosas, not against Facundo who was the "example" of this so called Barbarism. And mainly on purpose of a "civilized" way to rebel versus tyrany in Latin America
2 comments:
Nathan Lusignan said...
You make a good distinction between barbarism as it is embodied in the Caudillos such as Quiroga and Rosas and the indigenous culture of people like the Gauchos. You're interpretation of the book as functioning to preserve indigenous Argentinian culture is an interesting one. I will have to think about this further, but it seems to contradict Sarmiento's clear predilections for capitalism and a notion of "progress" directly imported from the European enlightenment. Obviously he admired the Gauchos, but I do not think there is a place for them in the modern Argentina that he aspired to create
I agree, but it makes me wonder why the book is called "Civilization and/or Barbarism" and how it is about Rosas at the same time. Where does he fit if we read "barbarism" as the strength to maintain cultural heritage?
Post a Comment