Monday, January 19, 2009

What is the people?

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.

2 comments:

  1. I enjoyed reading your blog.. I agree that Borges writting requires you to be on your toes. At first i didnt like this but as i pushed through it i began to enjoy the way he writes. I also agree with what you have said above about Eva... that in Evas My Message, i found myself on her and Perons side. I found it a powerfull piece of work regardless of whether it was populist propoganda. One does become captivated, its no wonder she was able to mobilize 'the masses'. I believe she acted with good intent. She stood up against the most powerfull people.. the military, the elite, the church.She risked and sacrificed a lot of her personal life and by doing that i think she proves that she was honestly doing/saying what she thought was best for 'her people'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I’m interested to hear that you enjoyed Borges’ piece, as I found it quite a challenge to piece together, and thoroughly understand. I too felt drawn to the protagonist because I empathized with him. Not that I’ve ever had awful things shoved in my mouth or had my large belly mocked, but because there was a transparency and “what will be, will be” attitude to his person. I ignorantly associate that feeling with Latin Americans despite the countless times they have fought for their homes, security, rights and families. I don’t know what to make of the Borges piece.
    I really liked how you communicated your feelings about the Perón piece. To me it seems you are speaking of her power with language, and her ability to persuade. In the same way you found yourself rooting for Perónism, I’m sure many others felt the same way. The fact that the speech is fifty years old, disconnected from its place of origin, spoken by an Argentinian woman and contradictory in some ways, but still has such a strong emotional appeal and the ability to persuade us of her devotion to “the people” means Eva may have been doing something correct in her writing. I can’t say whether I think Eva was truly for the people, or an object to be used for political propaganda. Either way her foundation certainly did a lot for “the people” and that shouldn’t be ignored.

    ReplyDelete