I am amazed at the fact that Charles Hardy decided to live in a box for 8 years in Venezuela, and in the end, ended up loving his experience there living in the poverty and the government supported housing. His experiences really depict President Chavez as a hero, not an enemy as he is depicted in the U.S media. He talks about how people would cry in the presence of him, not because they think he is a god, but they see themselves in Chavez. He really brings out the positive character of Chavez and how he positively impacted the poverty in his own nation, making it mandatory for government housing to have 3 bedrooms a family. He used the oil profits and gave some of it to his own people. I know this book has changed my view on Venezuela dramatically, given that when we hear "socialist", its like an evil cause in the U.S.
Charles Hardy's Novel "Cowboy in Caracas" surprised me. When a US citizen writes about Hugo Chavez, you don't expect it to be a positive account of Chavez's policies. In the states Chavez is a socialist dictator that threatens the democratic and capitalist way of life. Charles Hardy spent 8 years in Venezuela living in a Barrio with the impoverished masses. This experience gave him a far different perspective of Venezuela than the one that is upheld at large in the states. As he said in an interview, Chavez is a representation of the masses, a leader for an impoverished people who before did not have a voice. I feel, so often that the negative connotation that comes with socialism is due to point of reference. We in the states can't imagine socialism because it will take away our free market, the right of the individual. However, if ones country is largely comprised of a group of lower income people who were never truly given rights, who were murdered, abused, and forgotten then a system that wants to give everyone truly equal rights would be more than desirable. In a radio interview Hardy did, he said that in Venezuela national security is making sure that citizens have food, that they have medicine, that they are healthy and happy. I think of that in contrast to the US's national security, the no-fly lists, the phone taps, the searching of luggage. Which is really the more democratic nation?
Being from the US, I don't know much about Venezuelan history. This book is good becuase there are so many first hand accounts of went on. However, this was definitely the worst book I've read for this class. It does not matter that Hardy warned the reader of the bias of the book before the story begins, it still gets very annoying. Maybe it's that I just don't like memoirs. Hardy has to compare everything not only to the US but to events in his life. Ex) p.83 (Comparing Bolivar to Washington) "When I think of George Washington, I picture him in the boat crossing the Delaware River, but I can't imagine a painting of him on any altar anywhere in the United States, and I would be surprised to see him in someone's living room." -I guess the point of this is to belittle a US leader...but it's so irrelevant. Could it be possible that Venezuela and the US are two different countries with different cultures? It's comparison like these that make the book sooo annoying.
A last thought: It's a shame that the writing is so painful to read, and how personalized the story is, but I guess that's in the nature of the self-righteous memoir...memoirs are an oppurtinity for people who can't write to publish something, right?
In this book Charles Hardy makes sure that the depictions that he gives about Chaves are well established and are clear enough so that everyone understands what point of view he s coming from. He first explains that yes his book is from a particular point of view, but that he did this so that people could see the less media- popular side of Hugo Chaves. Yes it is true that Hardy lived in a shack, and that in that shack there was no plumbing or nothing that we would consider necessities of life, but it was way beyond that. The living conditions that he lived in were a mere representation of how most of the oppressed people in Venezuela were living like. This is where Hugo Chaves comes in; he was more of the representative of the poor when it came to the elections and the political atmosphere that was dominated by the elite. Being that he was not part of any of the popular political parties but that he was still able to be and underdog and win was what caused the rebellions by the elites against him. This much represented what happened to the poor Venezuelan population, they went from underrepresented to well represented and taken care of as much as possible. Hardy was able to move from the dwelling he lived in to a decent place, and he clearly states that it was because it was under the Chaves administration. If it were not for the constant support that Chaves gives to the poor, for one he would not have been in power this long, and two the possibility of a diminishing Venezuela would be in tact. Although Chaves had changed the constitution it was for the better of the people and that is why continually they support him. This book really changed my perspective on Venezuela because watching all the news clippings by Univision, one would think that Chaves was the devil himself, and this book disproves all of that. The reason I think the Untied States is seen as bad is because we are used to having things be run in a mediocre way, and have a bunch of complacent citizens, whose voice is not often heard. Unlike in Venezuela, where Chaves is well aware that the impoverished people that are considered, the minorities of the population, are quantitatively the majority, and takes actions to defend them.
“Cowboy in Caracas” really surprised me. Having lived in a box fro 8 years, Hardy depicts his experience in Caracas, Venezuela. What we see and hear about Hugo Chavez is not the same thing that Hardy thinks. We see how this book mentions the United States government being very poisonous against president Hugo Chavez. Hardy witnesses the people of Venezuela and their admiration for their president and how the United States is trying to get rid of him. Hardy, a Catholic priest causes controversial issues between the people of Venezuela and the views of the United States. The Venezuelan people are poor but are rich in ways going through constant struggles to survive. I feel that though around the media we hear how President Chavez is a not a good ruler, there is a reason why the people in Venezuela worship him. The people of Venezuela viewed the US as the bad guys so what does that say about us? There is more to the views of Chavez and the US than just the affects they have on each other.
In the Book “Cowboy in Caracas”, Charles Hayden gives his audience a one of a kind point of view of the Chavista Revolution, as he also explains his experience living in Cardboard in Caracas. Throughout the book Hayden goes on depth on President Hugo Chavez and his relationship with his people. Chavez makes his audience see the real side of Hugo Chavez and how the bush administration and the media portrayed Chavez as an evil man, when in reality Chavez was doing whatever he can to help his people, and by that he managed to win the love and respect from the people. I can honestly say that Charles Hayden book made me more aware of the Bush Administration and how they tried to demonized Chavez and take him down.
Charles Hardy a citizen that arises from the Barrios of Caracas living in a cardboard-tin-shack. This was written in the positive aspects of Hugo Chavez, according to Hardy the struggles that Chavez went through being the underdog were not easy. However, when it came up to elections it was a landslide because he was the president for the underprivileged or un-wealthy. Hugo Chavez was the President thats was suppose to be for the lower classs and middle class people. I find it interesting that someone like Hugo Chavez has been getting good feedback when right now his image is depicted as a Devil.
Cowboys in Caracas was a very captivating book. The way that Hardy epressed himself in this book caught my attention and kept me reading. I like that he was brutally honest about everything and gave things meaning to his readers by making so many comparisons. The mood he set in the begining of the book kept me reading. He explained the things leading up to the revolution in a way that made me want to revolt too! Things like the sanitation system, water, the transpotion sysyem, the rise in milk and gas prices were all things that effect peoples everyday lives. By Hardy pointing these things out he gave us the reasons for the revolution like no one has, from the perspective of the poor. The way he described these things helps the audience see exactly why people got fed up with the direction Venezuela was headed.
After reading what others have posted, I would have to agree, especially with that Jillian stated. When looking into the judgment that Chavez is given most of the time it is negative. But all sides of the spectrums have to be taken into consideration. Socialism was a form of government that was built for those in need and that it just what was done.
It is very impressing that he decided to live in a box, in an impoverished neighborhood. But at the same time it allowed him to experience what really went on in the country and how the people were actually living.
Everything within the book was broken down, and reasons were given to it, it was just not the media that was our only resource when it came to the reality of what Chavez was doing for his country, for his people
I am amazed at the fact that Charles Hardy decided to live in a box for 8 years in Venezuela, and in the end, ended up loving his experience there living in the poverty and the government supported housing. His experiences really depict President Chavez as a hero, not an enemy as he is depicted in the U.S media. He talks about how people would cry in the presence of him, not because they think he is a god, but they see themselves in Chavez. He really brings out the positive character of Chavez and how he positively impacted the poverty in his own nation, making it mandatory for government housing to have 3 bedrooms a family. He used the oil profits and gave some of it to his own people. I know this book has changed my view on Venezuela dramatically, given that when we hear "socialist", its like an evil cause in the U.S.
ReplyDeleteCharles Hardy's Novel "Cowboy in Caracas" surprised me. When a US citizen writes about Hugo Chavez, you don't expect it to be a positive account of Chavez's policies. In the states Chavez is a socialist dictator that threatens the democratic and capitalist way of life.
ReplyDeleteCharles Hardy spent 8 years in Venezuela living in a Barrio with the impoverished masses. This experience gave him a far different perspective of Venezuela than the one that is upheld at large in the states. As he said in an interview, Chavez is a representation of the masses, a leader for an impoverished people who before did not have a voice. I feel, so often that the negative connotation that comes with socialism is due to point of reference. We in the states can't imagine socialism because it will take away our free market, the right of the individual. However, if ones country is largely comprised of a group of lower income people who were never truly given rights, who were murdered, abused, and forgotten then a system that wants to give everyone truly equal rights would be more than desirable.
In a radio interview Hardy did, he said that in Venezuela national security is making sure that citizens have food, that they have medicine, that they are healthy and happy.
I think of that in contrast to the US's national security, the no-fly lists, the phone taps, the searching of luggage.
Which is really the more democratic nation?
Being from the US, I don't know much about Venezuelan history. This book is good becuase there are so many first hand accounts of went on. However, this was definitely the worst book I've read for this class. It does not matter that Hardy warned the reader of the bias of the book before the story begins, it still gets very annoying. Maybe it's that I just don't like memoirs. Hardy has to compare everything not only to the US but to events in his life.
ReplyDeleteEx) p.83 (Comparing Bolivar to Washington)
"When I think of George Washington, I picture him in the boat crossing the Delaware River, but I can't imagine a painting of him on any altar anywhere in the United States, and I would be surprised to see him in someone's living room." -I guess the point of this is to belittle a US leader...but it's so irrelevant. Could it be possible that Venezuela and the US are two different countries with different cultures? It's comparison like these that make the book sooo annoying.
A last thought: It's a shame that the writing is so painful to read, and how personalized the story is, but I guess that's in the nature of the self-righteous memoir...memoirs are an oppurtinity for people who can't write to publish something, right?
-Andrew Ugolino
In this book Charles Hardy makes sure that the depictions that he gives about Chaves are well established and are clear enough so that everyone understands what point of view he s coming from. He first explains that yes his book is from a particular point of view, but that he did this so that people could see the less media- popular side of Hugo Chaves. Yes it is true that Hardy lived in a shack, and that in that shack there was no plumbing or nothing that we would consider necessities of life, but it was way beyond that. The living conditions that he lived in were a mere representation of how most of the oppressed people in Venezuela were living like. This is where Hugo Chaves comes in; he was more of the representative of the poor when it came to the elections and the political atmosphere that was dominated by the elite. Being that he was not part of any of the popular political parties but that he was still able to be and underdog and win was what caused the rebellions by the elites against him. This much represented what happened to the poor Venezuelan population, they went from underrepresented to well represented and taken care of as much as possible. Hardy was able to move from the dwelling he lived in to a decent place, and he clearly states that it was because it was under the Chaves administration. If it were not for the constant support that Chaves gives to the poor, for one he would not have been in power this long, and two the possibility of a diminishing Venezuela would be in tact. Although Chaves had changed the constitution it was for the better of the people and that is why continually they support him. This book really changed my perspective on Venezuela because watching all the news clippings by Univision, one would think that Chaves was the devil himself, and this book disproves all of that. The reason I think the Untied States is seen as bad is because we are used to having things be run in a mediocre way, and have a bunch of complacent citizens, whose voice is not often heard. Unlike in Venezuela, where Chaves is well aware that the impoverished people that are considered, the minorities of the population, are quantitatively the majority, and takes actions to defend them.
ReplyDelete“Cowboy in Caracas” really surprised me. Having lived in a box fro 8 years, Hardy depicts his experience in Caracas, Venezuela. What we see and hear about Hugo Chavez is not the same thing that Hardy thinks. We see how this book mentions the United States government being very poisonous against president Hugo Chavez. Hardy witnesses the people of Venezuela and their admiration for their president and how the United States is trying to get rid of him. Hardy, a Catholic priest causes controversial issues between the people of Venezuela and the views of the United States. The Venezuelan people are poor but are rich in ways going through constant struggles to survive. I feel that though around the media we hear how President Chavez is a not a good ruler, there is a reason why the people in Venezuela worship him. The people of Venezuela viewed the US as the bad guys so what does that say about us? There is more to the views of Chavez and the US than just the affects they have on each other.
ReplyDeleteIn the Book “Cowboy in Caracas”, Charles Hayden gives his audience a one of a kind point of view of the Chavista Revolution, as he also explains his experience living in Cardboard in Caracas. Throughout the book Hayden goes on depth on President Hugo Chavez and his relationship with his people. Chavez makes his audience see the real side of Hugo Chavez and how the bush administration and the media portrayed Chavez as an evil man, when in reality Chavez was doing whatever he can to help his people, and by that he managed to win the love and respect from the people. I can honestly say that Charles Hayden book made me more aware of the Bush Administration and how they tried to demonized Chavez and take him down.
ReplyDeleteCharles Hardy a citizen that arises from the Barrios of Caracas living in a cardboard-tin-shack. This was written in the positive aspects of Hugo Chavez, according to Hardy the struggles that Chavez went through being the underdog were not easy. However, when it came up to elections it was a landslide because he was the president for the underprivileged or un-wealthy. Hugo Chavez was the President thats was suppose to be for the lower classs and middle class people. I find it interesting that someone like Hugo Chavez has been getting good feedback when right now his image is depicted as a Devil.
ReplyDeleteCowboys in Caracas was a very captivating book. The way that Hardy epressed himself in this book caught my attention and kept me reading. I like that he was brutally honest about everything and gave things meaning to his readers by making so many comparisons. The mood he set in the begining of the book kept me reading. He explained the things leading up to the revolution in a way that made me want to revolt too! Things like the sanitation system, water, the transpotion sysyem, the rise in milk and gas prices were all things that effect peoples everyday lives. By Hardy pointing these things out he gave us the reasons for the revolution like no one has, from the perspective of the poor. The way he described these things helps the audience see exactly why people got fed up with the direction Venezuela was headed.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading what others have posted, I would have to agree, especially with that Jillian stated. When looking into the judgment that Chavez is given most of the time it is negative. But all sides of the spectrums have to be taken into consideration. Socialism was a form of government that was built for those in need and that it just what was done.
ReplyDeleteIt is very impressing that he decided to live in a box, in an impoverished neighborhood. But at the same time it allowed him to experience what really went on in the country and how the people were actually living.
Everything within the book was broken down, and reasons were given to it, it was just not the media that was our only resource when it came to the reality of what Chavez was doing for his country, for his people