The topic of this talk by Feinmann is Domingo Faustino Sarmiento (1811-1888), one of the most important historical figures of 19th century Argentine history. He was a partisan of the Unitarians, the centralists, and served as President of Argentina 1868–74. The Federalist ruler of Argentina, Juan Manuel de Rosas (1793–1877), exiled Sarmiento to Chile in 1840, where he wrote a series of articles collected in a book published in 1845 known as the Facundo for short. It's full title in English is Life in the Argentine Republic in the Days of the Tyrants; or, Civilization and Barbarism.
In the conservative, "Mitrist" history that became dominant in Argentina for decades, Sarmiento tends to appear as a hero of "civilization," which for him and the conservatives was represented by the urban, centralist perspective of the Unitarians. For Sarmiento, Rosas was a representative of Federalist barbarism, the perspective of the uncivilized gauchos and poor farmers of the country.
On the 24th of May this year as part of the week of celebration of national independence, a key ceremony was President Cristina Fernández' presentation of the sword of "the Liberator" José de San Martín (1778-1850) to the Museo Histórico Nacional, saying in her presentation that this “la espada que liberó a medio continente” ("the sword that freed half a continent"). (Alejandra Dandan, La espada que simboliza la soberanía y la independencia Página/12 25.05.2015)
 |
| Juan Manuel de Rosas |
In her address on May 25 in the Plaza de Mayo, Cristina said:
... pero ayer, cuando difundíamos en las redes y difundía la Televisión Pública, mientras el sable corvo de San Martín recorría la ciudad para ir a su destino, donde había querido que estuviera, en el Museo Histórico, ahí millones de argentinos recién se enteraron que el libertador de medio continente había legado su sable en cláusula de testamento al brigadier Juan Manuel de Rosas, miren lo que nos falta argentinos todavía en materia de educación y cultura.The Vuelta de Obligado was a battle in November 1845 against a joint Anglo-French invasion attempt.
¿Y saben por qué? Porque la historiografía liberal, la que le contaban a los chicos en los colegios decía que Rosas era un tirano, y si Rosas era un tirano entonces cómo un hombre como San Martín le iba a legar su sable. ¿Y saben por qué se lo legó? Porque nos defendió en la Vuelta de Obligado frente a la invasión extranjera, con valor y coraje que pocos hombres han tenido.
[... but yesterday, when we broadcast on the networks and it was broadcast on Public Television, while the curved saber of San Martín returned to the city to go to its destination, where he would have wanted it to be, in the Museo Histórico, there millions of Argentines recently learned that the Liberator of half a continent had left his saber in a clause of his will to Brigadier Juan Manuel de Rosas, look at what we Argentines are still missing in the material of education and culture.
And do you know why? Because liberal {Mitrist} historiography, the one that is told to children in the schools, says that Rosas was a tyrant, and if Rosas was a tyrant, then why would a man like San Martín have come to give him his saber{?} And do you know why he gave it to him? Because he {Rosas} defended us in the Vuelta de Obligado against the foreign invasion, with bravery and courage that few men have had.]
Another reminder that "civilization" is also defined by politics, class and national perspectives.
 |
| 20-peso Argentine note commemorating the Vuelta de Obligado |
José María Rosa wrote of that battle (Rosas, nuestro contemporáneo; 1974):
El gran talento político de Rosas se revela en esta segunda guerra contra el imperialismo europeo: su labor de estadista y diplomático fue llamada genial por sus enemigos extranjeros... (...) Aunque resistir una agresión de la escuadra anglo-francesa ... parecía una locura, Rosas lo hizo. No pretendía con su fuerza diminuta ... imponerse a la fuerza grande, sino presentar una resistencia para que “no se la llevasen de arriba los gringos”. Artilló la Vuelta de Obligado, y allí les dio a los anglo-franceses una bella lección de coraje criollo el 20 de noviembre de 1845. No ganó, ni pretendió ganar, ni le era posible. Simplemente enseñó – como diría San Martín - que “los argentinos no somos empanadas que sólo se comen con abrir la boca”, al comentar, precisamente, la acción de Obligado.
[The great political talent of Rosas revealed itself in this second war against European imperialism: his work as a statesman and diplomat was called brilliant by his foreign enemies ... Although resisting an aggression of the Anglo-French squadron ... seemed crazy, Rosas did it. He didn't expect his diminutive force ... to impose itself on the large {Anglo-French} force, but rather to present a resistance so that "we don't concede to the gringos." The Vuelta de Obligado tookk place, and there they gave the Anglo-French a beautiful lesson in Creole courage on November 20, 1845. He didn't win, he didn't expect to win, nor was it possible. He simply showed - as San Martín would say - that "the Argentines are not empanadas that someone can just open their mouths and eat," commenting precisely on the action of Obligado.]
Feinmann in this lecture says the following of Rosas. The Argentine word negros here doesn't mean precisely what the English cognate "Negroes" means. Dark skin color is part of it, but it refers more broadly to people considered lower-class by those using the word and to dark skin generally, not only specifically to African ancestry. He refers to a novel of that period, Amalia (1851/1855) by José Mármol (1817-1871):
Amalia es una novela que muestra el enfrentamiento entre las clases altas y la persecución a que Rosas somete a estas clases privilegiadas. ¿Cómo los somete Rosas?
Los somete por medio de darles importancia a clases como los gauchos, los negros e incluso los indios –pese a que Rosas hizo una excursión punitiva contra los indios–. Pero lo que no toleran las clases altas es la importancia que los negros cobran dentro del esquema político rosista. Y los negros eran los sirvientes, sirvientes, así sin vueltas, los sirvientes que estaban en las casas de las familias adineradas. Y estos sirvientes eran delatores, eran delatores. Entonces las clases adineradas, las clases altas, les tenían miedo a estos negros porque eran los negros del Restaurador de las Leyes y fácilmente delataban a las familias bien, a las familias de alcurnia, a las familias patricias, a las familias que representaban el avance de la civilización en la Argentina.
Pero Rosas, Rosas para esta gente era un populista, un populista. Ustedes saben que las clases altas odian a los populistas. Porque, claro, odian al pueblo y lo que hacen los populistas es mezclarse con el pueblo.
[Amalia is a novel that shows the confrontation among the upper classes and the persecution to which Rosas submitted these privileged classes.
He submitted them to it to give importance to classes like the gauchos, the negros and including the Indians even though Rosas made a punitive expedition against the Indians. But what the upper classes don't tolerate is the importance that the negros achieve within the rosista political scheme. And the negros were the servants, servants, that is without recourse, the servants who were in the houses of the wealthy families. And these servants were informers, were informers. So the wealthy classes, the upper classes, were afraid of these negros because they were negros of the Restorer of the Laws {Rosas} and easily informed on the good families, the families of good breeding, the patrician families, the families who represented the advance of civilization in Argentina.
But Rosas, Rosas for these people was a populist, a populist. You know that the upper classes hate populists. Because, obviously, they hate the people and what populists do is mix with the people.]
No comments:
Post a Comment