From Wikipedia:
As Kimberly Ball observes, "civilization is identified with northern Europe, North America, cities, Unitarians, Paz, and Rivadavia", while "barbarism is identified with Latin America, Spain, Asia, the Middle East, the countryside, Federalists, Facundo, and Rosas."
And Sarmiento believed that those gauchos were mere parasites.
That's a start. The floor is yours.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I enjoyed the way Facundo's rough childhood led him through the path of power and success, allowing him to be feared and respected by all. The guachos described in the book are very primitive yet extremely traditional with their values, holding on to it and not transforming as society changes throughout time. This depicts that there were still people out their that believed that sometimes change does not always mean better. Guachos would be related to the cowboys in the U.S, and as a child many kids wanted to be a cowboy, which portrays how well respected traditional people are throughout their country. Guachos describe how they would " rather live out here than in a palace in the city". This shows how beautiful it is out in the open land, and that there are people out there reaping the benefits of nature. I appreciate the fact there are people out there willing to live without running water, electricity. What some call barbaric, others call beautiful.
ReplyDeleteafter reading the book it is safe to say that this life style lived by Facundo is triggered by his Gaucho state of mind. i say this because after discussions with the professor i now know that the term gaucho can be translated to macho. being a macho means to be powerful, to be a leader by power, to be a man. whether it is mentioned in the book or not it is clear that Facundo has part if not most of his dictator traits from this mentality. With a combination of other traits it is easy to add up why Facundo became the dictator he was. the mentality of power without morale was probably his primary guide to dictator
ReplyDeleteDon't forget to say GA... U... CHO!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSarmiento compares his enemies and those other groups he blames for his lack of power in his own country to the already agreed-upon barbiarians of the West, for example Asians and Middle-Easterns. Of course he puts someone like Rivadavia in the civilized category because, like Sarmiento himself, he is an enemy of Facundo. For Sarmiento, the easiest way to tarnish the image of his enemies is through comparison. He conforms to this popular Western concept that if you are not civilized, your are a barbarian.
ReplyDeleteGauchos were seen as parasites, but in reality they were the strongest and most noble men at the time. The fact that they knew how to be content with their lives and the poor conditions which they were living in, made them seem that much more civilized than what Kimberly Ball gives them credit for. They most certainly lived by the thought that only the strong survive, and I believe that just because they might take more drastic measures than others doesn’t make them savages, but rather protecting what is theirs. The gauchos willingness to take the little things that they have and learn how to survive and surpass life day to day without any luxuries says a lot about them. Facundo in the other hand, having the luxuries was not ever content causing him to take the measures that he did, even if that meant getting rid of everything he once knew before.
ReplyDeleteI would have to disagree with Kimberly Ball when she identifies barbarism with Facundo. I now understand Facundo’s motives in the book and how his childhood didn’t affect him in any way is just led him to power, success, and to be feared by others. I disagree with Kimberly Ball because I feel that gauchos were and still are the most positive and strongest men at that time. As we watched the short clip in class, about the lives of gaucho men I saw how they didn’t mind much of the conditions they lived in and as one of them stated “they would rather live where they are now than live in a castle with riches”, this shows that they were more than parasites as Sarmiento believed. They were men who valued what they were given, who didn’t ask to be rich but to just wake up every day also men who help others and value their lifestyle. This is a funny situation because those with riches and vanity always tend to judge those who don’t have much. This is seen in the world of today as well but to me it is society’s fault that we as people are this way.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Machel and the comments that she made. I also agree that gauchos were some the strongest men at that time. With that being said I believe that they very flexible and are willing to move with mother nature and adapt to conditions. Facundo was used to the mentality of the gaucho and this is why he did what he did as described in the book. This can also be compared to other dictators around the world. An example can be Trujillo in The Dominican Republic. How Trujillo was befoer he became the president has a lot to do with his actions throughout his regime. Again I would like to piggy back with those that stated that Facundo would simply just do what was best in the gaucho way.
ReplyDeleteI do not agree nor understand Sarmiento's statement that gaucho's are parasites. Often those that live in a welfare state are seen as parasites for they do not "contribute" to society yet take freely from it. Gaucho's however, do not live in a welfare state: society doesn't give to them and they don't take from society. They strive to have no connection with society. As Sarmiento wrote, "Freedom from restraint, occupation,and care is the supreme good of the Gaucho."
ReplyDeleteFor a man who seems to value only the civilized, Sarmiento gives a an appealing counter to the glorified civilized society of the cities.
I do not believe what Kimberly Ball said was correct because if all people that have to be force to adapt to their environment have to be considered as savage is wrong. So, we as people would be wrong to to say other people are savages just because they are less fortunate and different will be consider as parasites is unfair. I actually believe that Gauchos were strong, wiser and the fact an essential part because they are able to adapt to their environment and the fact they use drastic measures to survive does not mean that they are useless in society it totally means the opposite because they are actually stronger for surviving. People like Kimberly Ball would not be able to do what the Gauchos did.
ReplyDeleteThe quote by Kimberly Ball describes civiliation with anything relating to Western civilization or that of the U.S. and barbarianism pertaining to Gauchos. In the book they were seen as lesser people, and animalistic in nature. From the clip of the video we saw in class last week we saw that this was not clearly the idea. In fact they were modest and decent hard workers. Many of them proudly called the countryside their homes where they respectively worked herding and they even said that despite the really hot summers, and extremly cold winters that they would not trade it for anyhting. This just goes to show how capitalism is taking a firm hold of many people and when people try to establish their own path it is deemed as being radical. In fact, Gauchos were seen as heroes in the eyes of many. Some of them ranged from the common desert hero, to the pathfinder who controlled the fate of individuals. I seriously believe gauchos were the thing to be back in those days and something to look up to and revere.
ReplyDeleteHere's some food for thought (or to sir a debate)
ReplyDeleteSmartinez said Facundo is a Gaucho which is assimilated with "Macho". Although this aspect was driven by our discussion with Professor Lopez, I feel that if we keep that same macho mindset and apply it to our lives we will realize we have Macho Gauchos as friends associates, etc. Given the qualities that one must possess to be a dictator( which no one fully has) you can see (in my opinion) that we all are a Macho Gaucho in some aspect.
And yes class we will all disagree that Gauchos weren't parasites as Sarmeinto called them but keep in mind that he did hold a position of power( president of Argentina) and when one achieves that they say what they want no matter if its wrong, right or orange(note to How to rule the world for examples).
Lastly, i believe that Power isn't the lone key to being nor becoming a dictator. It's the prize that one obtains from having the other qualities that allows him or her to reach thus far on the ladder of dictator.
Tameka Baber
Dictatorship
ReplyDeleteWell I first let me begin by saying that Facundo is an interesting novel because the way it breaks down his childhood helps readers to have an understanding of way he yearned power and became a monster while leading his people. His childhood played a major role in him becoming a powerful and harsh dictator. Also in this novel, we learned a lot about the gauchos and even though they were described as primeval, they continued to live their lifestyles without undergoing changes that took place as times modified. And this point was proven to be correct when viewed the you tube clip in class where the man says he rather live in the countryside than move to the city which has all the luxuries. - karell
ReplyDeleteTest
ReplyDeleteSarmiento observes that "progress is impossible without the possession of soil." The idea that a people's only hope of improvement lies in the ownership of land is distinctly colonial. It was the colonial Europeans, after all, that seized the land which had belonged to the American and divided it amongst themselves in the form of "property." Sarmiento makes it even clearer that he is a product of colonial rule as he later observes that Buenos Aires, by virtue of its direct relationship with Europe, is the only city capable of gaining "power and revenue." The nomadic lifestyle of the Argentinian Gaucho is directly opposed to the spatially segregated society that Sarmiento occupies. Because of this, the Gaucho is seen as threatening and savage. The disdain held for the rural citizenry of Argentina by the urban elite is reciprocated by the Gaucho, who has a dislike for any "man of refinement." Colonialism drove the upper and lower classes further apart as a result of the emphasis place upon land and the ownership thereof.
ReplyDeleteIn combining Sarmiento’s belief that gauchos are parasites, and Kimberly Ball’s observation that barbarism is directly associated with Latin America, I could not help but to think of the description of the bad gaucho. He is described as an outlaw, a person divorced from society. In my opinion the bad gaucho is forced into the lifestyle he currently represents. Survival of the fittest, competition and the desire to be the best is what seems to be the driving force behind a bad gauchos decisions. The book mentions that stealing is his profession, it’s all he knows how to do. The bad gaucho feels that he has no place in the present structure of society because his way of living isn’t accepted. Even if he is doing nothing to benefit society, and partaking in its actual destruction, why cant society help him? What is the country doing to aid the bad gauchos, other than creating a segmented society? So if the presence and customs of the bad gauchos had any influence on Bell and Sarmiento’s opinions, I think that using him as an example is wrong, anyone under these circumstances could choose this lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteIn the book Facundo:Barbarism and Civilization i enjoyed the two point of views through the lenses of Sarmiento in which he explores civilization and Barbarism. Kimberly Ball exposes the reader to her thoughts on what she thinks barbarism is and the geographical areas in which they are profound and likely. While i do not agree with Kimberly ball on her view of certain places such as Latin America, The Middle East and Spain being places of Barbarism, it was interesting to see her observations and reasoning to why she felt that way. Just as i came into the class i did not have a positive on look of dictators in a whole, but after learning and reading about the life of a dictator it made more sense to me. I also enjoyed the you tube clip of the gauchos and how they preferred the lives that they lived instead of a life of luxury.
ReplyDeleteafter reading parts of the book "Facundo" i realized that what people have been after for their whole lives throughout history has been land they want to be their own boss and rule their own piece of land and the only way to do so is to claim a land as being yours or take over a land and make it yours. i don't consider someone who is trying to adopt to there environment a savage because that person is just trying to get full use of what is given to them and seeing what they can use to survive its something called survival of the fittest which everyone is this world goes through wen it comes for applying for a job a home for anything.
ReplyDeleteFacundo taught me a lot about the guacho lifestyle. After reading this book I have a lot of respect for the guachos because I see them as the noblest men of their era. They were able to survive through the roughest conditions and I admire them or that. The fact that they were able to survive through such terrible conditions shows how strong and how much heart they had. I find Facundo to be a very amazing person because of everything he went through. He had a very rough childhood and I find it pretty amazing that he was able to have so much success and power in the end.
ReplyDelete