Cholera etc.

I haven't written anything in quite a while...I've just started reading Love in the Time of Cholera. Once again, I'm finding pleasure in Garcia Marquez's style...well...at least in Edith Grossman's translation...even though I haven't read much yet. So...I shall have to get back to this...I'm just meeting Florentino Ariza...quite a character...by the looks of it.

Some Smart or stupid (not pointing any fingers, Dan Quayle) Things Other People Have Said

Ok...so I guess I've decided to keep this blog alive...at least for now. I don't really have much to say at this point so I'll just put up a few quotes I like:

"Ever wonder about those people who spend $2 apiece on those little bottles of Evian water? Try spelling Evian backward." ~George Carlin

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."
~George Carlin

"I was recently on a tour of Latin America, and the only regret I have was that I didn't study Latin harder in school so I could converse with those people." ~Dan Quayle

"He was a wise man who originated the idea of God." ~Euripedes

Final Final Post

I just realized that I forgot a few thoughts that were supposed to be part of my first last post.

A)Wikipedia--At the beginning I was sceptical about this...It always seemed like a cool assignment but I thought too much emphasis was palced on it...But, I am glad we got to expereince that and make a (lasting?) contribution to it. of course, as I kept working on it, I got a tinge of that obsessive streak...All in all, it was a positive, though somewhat stressful, expereince.

B) Blogs--I actually like the fact that we did this, even if other responsibilities etc. sometimes got in the way. I think it's a good way to share opinions on the books with classmates. Will I keep blogging? I can't predict the future...though I suspect I might...at least on occasion, post something.

C) Dictator novels--It is certainly a genre that I previously would have avoided but, having said that, I am glad I got to read these books (with the exception of Fff...yeah)...

Finally, overall a great course. Thanks Jon.

The Feast of the Beast 2.0

A bit post festum, I realize, but better than never, right? Right?...pause...[followed by a very high-pitched]RIghT?

Thus far I have not really addressed the gender issues and I think this book, better than the others we've read, really captures the positions of powerlessness and subordination that most women faced in these dictatorships. Of course, we get accounts of brutal treatment of women in Facundo, or, as in the case of The President, their inability to have any influence on what happens. In I the Supreme and The General in His Labyrinth, we get accounts of women as sexual objects, there to satisfy the needs of the dictators...though Manuela Saenz plays a prominant role in Garcia Marquez's novel. Still, she is left behind...discarded alomost. This brings me to the position of women in The Feast of the Goat and the novel's more detailed, and certainly more graphic, accounts of violence against women.

Of course, what immediately jumps out at us with this novel is that it starts with Urania's arrival in the Dominican Republic and is essentially written from her point of view. This book, then, is not merely about Trujillo and his fall, but perhaps, even more so, about Urania and her personal journey to rid herself of the trauma of her rape, or rather, to make it more bearable because she will never be rid of it. The Urania plot really takes off in the second part of the book and, although we are told what happened to her at the end of the novel, there are hints throughout the book (ex. Trujillo remembering the girl at Mahagony House...you just get the sense that that girl is Urania). The part where she describes the events at 'the party' is very intense and difficult to read and, of course, explains why she behaves the way she does to her father and her family.

The power that men have over women in this book is also seen in the accounts of the rapes and violence committed against young girls by Ramfis & co.

There are women in this book who do hold some power, or who are not necessarily mere sex objects. I am thinking of Minerva Mirabal and my friend Lupe. The former is severly punished (arrested, tortured and eventually killed) for her 'transgressions' while the latter's male posturing makes her look ridiculous despite the reports that she has a lot of blood on her hands. Nevertheless, both these cases show, to some extent at least, that women cannot have power unless they behave like men.

Finally, the power of the dictator in this novel is accentuated by constant references to Trujillo's gaze. Other than his name, I would hazzard a guess that the word "gaze" appears most often with regard to the dictator. This is, in part, what intimidates people and gets them to do what he wants. I couldn't help but recall the issue of panopticism here. It is as if everyone in this novel is a prisoner and the guard that i s Trujillo keeps a constant watch on them. This, of course, is a common feature of dictatorships--eyes of power everywhere, with the poewer to alter beahviour--and it is present in all the books we've read.

While this book has its bits of humour, it is probably the most graphic, and therefore, the darkest, of the books we've read in this class. Just my humble opinion.

The Feast of the Goat 1.0

Ok...so it's been a while longer than I expected but I'm here and ready to baa.

As I mentioned in the first blurb on this novel, I like the fact that we get different points of view.

I want to briefly note that despite not being quite as experimental or abstract as I the Supreme or even The President, this novel retains the characteristics of the modernist texts. We talked about the slippages through time and shifts in narratorial voice. The voice addressing Urania is interesting. I just read it as the voice in her head (her conscience, so to speak), not necessarily another person. Vargas Llosa also manages to use some of the strategies of Joyce or Roa Bastos without getting too abstract. For example, he lists all the enterprises losing money due to the sanctions in one long sentence: "The music of names and figures lulled the Generalissimo, who was barely listening: Atlas Commercial, Caribbean Motors, Tobacco Products S. A., Dominican Cotton Consortium...Red Iron Works, El Marino Iron Works...El Caribe newspaper" (114).

In terms of writing, power and dictators I find it interesting that Trujillo is assassinated in the first part of the novel. I think by doing this Vargas Llosa is, in a sense, further depriving Trujillo of power...and consolidating his own. The novel is about his regime, yet Trujillo is denied the importance he would have had in real life.

In terms of the humour, I found these examples funny: "You're pickled in alcohol..." (112) and the description of Lupe (the wife of Johnny Abbes) "I know she's tough, and knows how to fight, and carries a pistol and goes to whorehouses like a man..."(71)...Maybe I just find this one funny because all the women we've met previously were pretty powerless...

Finally...some fun facts about goats (I chose the points most closely related to this book):

1st brought to America by Columbus;
mature healthy male can breed 20-40 does;
both male and female goats can have beards
castrated male goat called "wether"

(from: Angela McKenzie-Jakes. "Facts About Goats." Bulletin II. Vol. I Florida A&M University. College of Engineering Sciences, Technology and Agriculture. http://www.famu.edu/goats/UserFiles/File/Facts_About_Goats.pdf)
*Sorry, residual effects of Wikipedia....

Oh and...Trujillo...vulgar, called the goat. Virginia Woolf called Ulysses vulgar and its author a "he-goat" (VW's Diary). Coincidence? I think not. Ok...ok...pushing it.

The Last Post...or...?

Boom! I am back...the Barbarus Balcanicus strikes again! Or...gets back to civilization????

I thought I'd mess with the chronological order a little bit...in part to keep things in the spirit of the books we've read, and also because I have not quite managed to...let's not go there!

What can I say about this course? When I started reading the first book I thought: "I can't Ffffffacun...do this!!!" (ok, so there goes my lame attempt to emulate the style of the greatest Latin American novel of the 20th century...) But yes, Sarmiento's book was, for the most part, a snoozefest! Things got better from The President on. And yes, I have a special place in my heart for I the Supreme... It was, by far, the most challenging book but I also found it refreshing to get away from the more conventional forms of story-telling. While I am sure that there are aspects of these works that have been lost in translation, I enjoyed the richness of language in each (with the exception of Facundo). This might be an English major thing...or not...but I love the play with language in both The President and, especially, I the Supreme. I already wrote about Lot's wife ("did she invent lotteries?") in an earlier post as an example that struck my fancy...

I have to say that I was surprised by the amount of humour in these dictator novels, especially the last three. I think that that is, in part, what makes them readable. Without the humour, reading about such dark and disturbing periods in the histories of various countries might be too much to take. But, there is a fine balance here too. The portrayal of these dictators as sycophants would be completely funny if it was not so tragic.

The theme of this course was writing and power and I have discussed this to some extent earlier. I wanted, however, to point out the power of the writer that is, in some ways, transferred to the reader. For this, one has to look at the books we did as part of one whole. With Facundo, we have a supposedly objective, historical account of a dictatorial figure. The President gives us an insider's point of view but in the form of a bigger picture. I the Supreme allows us, for the first time, to get to the expressed thoughts of a dictator (we can never get directly into Francia's thoughts); The General in His Labyrinth for the first time shows a 'dictator's' doubts about what he is/is not doing--the frailty and humanity of such a figure; and, The Feast of the Goat shows that dictatorial paranoia is not always that (ie. not always completely unfounded). In a sense, each of the books answers questions left over from the previous one, and each does so from a different perspective on life in a dictatorship. In this sense, the power the reader is endowed with is a power no human being can have in real life--seeing things from virtually every persepective.

But...the If-I-had-to-pick-a- dictator...Award goes to (drumroll).... Simon Bolivar.

I enjoyed reading these books and am definitely planning to read some more Latin American lit...Of course, I have to finish The Feast of the Goat first!

So this is the last post...but not really, because I intend to post on said goat...

*NB: My recent consumption of alcoholic beverages was not limited to today's class :P

The Feast of the Goat 0.5

Unfortunately, I have not been able to read more than a couple of chapters up to this point but I'll make a couple of observations briefly and hopefully add more soon.

I was almost in shock when I started reading this book...A woman's point of view! I thought women didn't have a voice in these novels! Of course, this was written in 2000, so I guess things have changed a bit. I like the fact that this novel is written from more than one point of view and I find myself enjoying the slippages through time, both within chapters and from one chapter to the next.

I haven't read enough about the dictator yet to be able to talk about him in a meaningful way but he seems to have a fondness for sharks...

At least this time we see there is a plot to get rid of the tyrant...

One other note: I am enjoying the humour in this novel as well...

The General in His Labyrinth Part II

I am on a sugar/caffeine/insomnia high so this might not make much sense...

We have touched on this in class, and I had mentioned it in the previous blog...Bolivar, as depicted here, is a far cry from the other dictators we have had the good fortune? misfortune? pleasure?(insert appropriate word here...) of reading about up to this point (with, perhaps...[a very strong perhaps] the exception of El Supremo)...Indeed, it is as if the only descriptions of Bolivar as a dictator are the ones in which he literally dictates the letters to his trusty scribe (and nephew) Fernando. Of course, there are reports of various people calling him a dictator which brings me to another point of interest: the role of the narrator. He describes what is being said (and written) about Bolivar in various places but clearly rejects it, as we can infer from his tone throughout the novel. It is an interesting parallel to the first-person "narration" by El Supremo, which has an effect similar to that in Garcia Marquez's ...ugh I give up!!! Though I am not managing to articulate it very well, I am referring to the idea that the President figure has done a lot for his country and that those calling him a dictator are not really aware of the magnitude of what was done and are attempting to undermine it in some way...

I also wanted to briefly get back to something else I noted in Blog No.1 regarding this novel and that is the use of humour, subtle as it is. An example (admittedly, in the first half of the novel) is the part about Josefa Sagrario and the images conjured up by th efollowing: "...for over the front and back of her dress had hunga a cuirass of magnificent local goldwork. And when he tried to carry her to the hammock he could scarcely lift her because of the weight of the gold" (114)...Of course, there are plenty of examples later on as well...I have to admit I chuckled when the words "biblical rages" are immediately followed by reported shouts of ""Fuck it!" (186).

I also like some of the 'quotable bits'...For example, ""And there's nothing more dangerous than a written memoir."" (154) Also regarding memoirs: ""They're nothing but dead men making trouble" (201)

A very brief blurb on intertextuality...We have noticed bits of I, the Supreme and Facundo creeping in (the ornage trees; the illness; the faithful servant/scribe in the case of the former and descriptions of battle, references to Rosas etc. that echo Sarmineto's book). There are some echoes of The President, as well...I'm thinking of those wretched turkey-buzzards!!! I guess what I'm trying to say is that, in a sense, this book is pulling together all the other ones we have read up to this point...

I think I'll end it here.

The General in His Labyrinth Part I

Well...here goes my attempt to get back into 'good-personhood'....

This is the first time I'm reading a book by Gabriel Garcia Marquez (to my eternal shame). I like his style and...what a different account of the dictator figure! Of course, Simon Bolivar really was a hero for many, unlike dictators who project themselves as such but have nothing to back it up with.

I find it interesting that so much emphasis is placed on reading as opposed to writing in this book. We have Manuela and Fernando reading to the General; we have accounts of the trail of books he has left behind him over the years and various military campaigns; when letters come there is an emphasis on reading again, rather than the writing. There is also a sense of deterioration, both in the kinds of books the General has his aides read to him from and, more obviously, in the fact that the General himself can not really read anymore because of his deteriorating health and more generally, his deteriorating power. This is perhaps also a metaphor for his fading dream of continental unity.

I also found the account of Bolivar to be an interesting mix of Facundo and El Supremo, with the former's bravery and militray capability and the latter's intellect....but lacking the brutality of both of htose men. In addition, he is clearly loved by the people while Facundo and El Supremo are both hated and feared. Ok, so there have been more than a few attempts on the General's life bu thte impression I got that most of the regular people genuinely like him...Obviously, his enemeis would want him dead.

I have to say that I am much more sympathetic to this character than to the others we have encountered thus far...There is such a sadness about him and yet it is intricately intertwined with humour...I am really liking this book.

I the Supreme Part II

I don't seem to be able to articulate my thoughts on this tonight so I have no idea if any of this is going to make any sense. Nevertheless, here it goes.

I thought a bit about the discussion we had in class yesterday about the "death of the author" and how readers inevitably connect the texts to, or interpert them within the framework of, some aspects of their own time, place, expereince etc. As we noted in class , this book, along with The President, can really be about any dictator...Fidel Castro is one who comes to mind...or Robert Mugabe....But I had to giggle when I read the following: "I am the final judge. I can decide how things will go" (196). Why? Because this reminded me of (the democratically elected?) Bush, Jr.'s fairly recent statement that he is "the decider" or, the more dated gem, that "it would be a heck of a lot easier if [the US] was a dictatorship...so long as [he is] the dictator!" The quote from I the Supreme just seems so perfect and if we keep reading, the Supreme writes that he can "contrive the facts. Invent the events" (196). Hmmm...sounds familiar...WMDs...mushroom clouds... although, in fairness, it wasn't only the decider contriving the events in this case as he prepared to 'prevent war' by starting one--he had some help from his Patinos. I guess this is my strange way of getting to the theme of writing and power and its relevance today.

Indeed, what I am getting at is the fact that this book is just as relevant today as it was when it was published and that the dangers are not unique to dictatorship. Indeed, the kind of paranoia and fearmongering that Francia exhibits is strangely familiar in today's democracies where the need for security is used as an excuse to erode civil liberties. Writing, whether in the form of legislation (Patriot Act) or in the speeches of senior memebers of the Bush administration in the lead-up to the Iraq war. These could be examples of the sentence, not the sword, being the weapon (109)...but we all know what happened then. Of course, the US is still a far cry from the type of regime described in this book but I feel that some of the parallels are useful.

This book is also a powerful indictment of the misuse of religion. Patino's request for a cross to mark his grave is a perfect illustration of the kind of hypocrisy found in those who commit heinous crimes and then turn to religion when it is too late. In this sense, the dictator is less of a hypocrite. He does not pretend to be religious and rightly criticizes Patino, asking, what the cross can mean to him after all he has done after calling him the "craftiest scoundrel in the last hundred years" (408). It certainly did not seem to mean much when he was participating in the torture of human beings duirng the "interrogations" he conducted.

As I've noted before, despite its humour, this book is also very dark even though that darkness is often very subtle. We infer from both the compiler's notes and also El Supremo's descriptions of the punishments almost used on those who did not do what he ordered that such punishments were commonplace at the time. In a sense, it is the account of reality we get from reading between the lines. One of the examples is when El Supreom complains about all the widows wanting to talk to him. The assumption is that thier husbands were killed because of suspected disloyalty. Another example that stuck with me was the story about the kitten that was eaten by rats as part of a sick experiment.

Still, I like this book and I'm glad I got to read it.

I the Supreme-Part I

What a breath of fresh air this book is! I am liking the progression from Facundo to The President and now to this! I the Supreme is a difficult book to read but I am liking it thus far. It is quite different from the first two books we have read on so many levels. For one, I am really liking the fact that we get more access to the character of the dictator, and to his own perspective. Before I go on, I want to quickly go over some of the structural/stylistic aspects that I find so fascinating.

This book displays many of the characteristics of the modernist, experimental novel practiced by writers like James Joyce and Virginia Woolf in the early part of the 20th century. Indeed, this book reminds me a lot of Ulysses, with its puns, and various other play with language, the use of the stream of consciousness and of course, its inclusion of the profane and the colloquial. I have noted before that parts of The President are very Joycean but Roa Bastos's entire book could almost be dubbed the twin of Joyce's masterpiece. Some examples are the words raza and azar, the latter being the former spelled backwards, appearing in the same sentence (98) or the alliteration in "They finally formed the filigreed florets of malaria" (45).

Other aspects remind me of Flann O'Brien's At Swim-Two-Birds, especially the metafictional elements like the passage about writing that we discussed in class ..."Don't you think that I could be made into a fabulous story?" the dictator asks (29). On one level, that is the exact meaning of his question but on the metafictional level, the fiction itself is asking the same thing. The talking skull story, as well as the talking stones etc. also remind me of the characters in O'Brien's book which leave their ontological plain...sort of. The gaps in the printed text is also something that occurs in At Swim. Of course, tracing all the various forms of intertextuality in I the Supreme would be a very difficult task.

While this is also a dark book on many levels, I find myself enjoying the humour in it. I will say it again, what a breath of fresh air compared to (mainly) Facundo but also to the more sobering novel by Asturias. I am not quite where I should be by now in terms of the reading but I am looking forward to reading the rest of this challenging book.

The President-Post II

I have to say it again...The President was a much better read than Facundo even though it rivals the latter in terms of graphic descriptions of violence...but enough about that.

Now...is it just me, or is it somewhat implausible that Angel Face does not seem to realize that he's being set up until it's too late? He knows what the regime is about and is aware of their methods and yet he still believes they'll just let him reach the United States...? This part of the novel really left me scratching my head. I can understand the self-preservation by Major Farfan (unless it was a set-up from the beginning in order to test Angel's loyalty) or Rodas' seeming lack of emotion as he talks about his wife's illness and subsequent life in the convent...but not Angel Face's lack of caution.

That lack of caution, I imagine, is in part due to the sense of invincibility he may feel in his capacity as "the favourite." This novel, then, may be read as a cautionary tale. Nobody is safe and nobody can escape the omnipresent gaze of the government in a dictatorship, and indeed, nobody can be assured of remaining in a favoured position, even if they have not done anything particularly offensive. Indeed, the higher one is within the power structure the greater the subsequent, almost inevitable, fall. Farfan and Rodas are able to return to their duties or attain even higher posts while Angel Face is literally tortured to death, both physically and psychologically.

The psychological aspects...the constant fear...the lack of information...people reporting each other's actions to the governemnt all made the living conditions depicted in this novel so difficult to read about. The descriptions of the physical violence were also hard to get through but in a different way. It did not feel like the reader was also being physically tortured (perhaps with the exception of the description of Angel Face's last days) but the mind games, I felt, really brought it home for the reader. Perhaps I am not articulating this well but what I am trying to say is that essentially, reading some of the more psychologically intense passages, it almost feels like the reader is experiencing what the characters are...But...I ramble.

I was also disappointed that we do not find out more about the Zany and what exactly made him the way he was...although I would hazard a guess that he was ("madness" and all), at least in part, a product of the regime. How can anyone remain "normal" (whatever normal means) under such circumstances?

The President--post I

I am not sure that I even need to say this but...here it is nonetheless...I find this book much easier to read than Facundo. So now that I have said that I can get to the other stuff.

Where to start? I find it interesting that this book pays much more attention to women. For a start, unlike its predecessor it actually has female characters, the lady rendered earless by Facundo notwithstanding. This automatically makes it a less macho affair and indeed, it shows the men's vulnerabilities as well as the women's. An example is Rodas, whose conscience won't allow him to forget the brutal murder of the Zany carried out by his friend Vasquez. Indeed Rodas seems quite traumatized by the event and I think the psychological realism, the consequences of the brutality of the regime, the toll it takes even on those working for the government makes it more than merely the bloodbath that Facundo is. In fairness, Sarmineto did not exactly set out to give the innermost thoughts of his characters and, of course, the field of psychology has changed quite a bit from his time to that of Asturias. One thing I have noticed, however, is that we do not get, at least up to this point, access to the title character's thoughts, as indeed was the case with Facundo.

There are, of course, other similarities to Sarmiento's book--the emphasis on violence and brutality; the mention of wild beasts (tigers included); the use of dramatic language and vivid imagery (though this somehow works much better here than in Facundo). Perhaps I shall say more on this on another occasion.

I also wanted to briefly mention some of the modernist elements of the novel. Its emphasis on time is interesting. A lot seems to happen at times when the clock is striking the hour. In addition, the novel is divided into periods of a few days at a time but the actions shifts fairly seemlessly to the more distant past (as in the description of Camila's trip to the coast) and back again. The presence of little bits of verse, as well as some of the play with language strikes me as almost Joycean (ex. "Curveofacurveinacurveofacurvecurveofacurveinacurveof Lot's wife. (Did she invent lotteries?)" p.20 or the whole "logical, illogical, relogical" banter between Dona Venjamon and her husband p. 54).

I am looking forward to reading the rest...even though it still is a difficult read because of all the suffering depicted. I found the description of Camila's old nurse when Nina Fedina goes to the general's house especially touching...as well as Fedina's clinging to the baby...

It is also ironic that while the authorities are searching for the colonel's killer and accusing and interrogating and torturing innocent people, the real killer is dead already (shot by the police) and nobody knows about it...at least that's what we think at this point in the novel.

Forgot the tag

I realized today that I forgot to tag my last post...I went back and added the tag...Hopefully it worked.

Facundo post, the second

I have been trying to make sense of this book for the last little while and I'm not sure that I'm coming up with anything wothwhile. I was disappointed that, in parts at least, it reverts to the style and mood of the first couple of chapters (which I found very difficult to get through). This had the effect of making my mind wander and indeed, made it very difficult to continue reading at times (and possibly contributed to my gray hair count).

Despite the above-mentioned difficulties, I have to admit that Sarmiento raises some very interesting questions about governance, perception, the civilization/barbarism or city/country dichotomies. I shall not dwell too much on these latter issues, only note the much more sympathetic treatment of the gaucho. Is Sarmiento saying that the gaucho is really not that bad, or that Rosas is so terrible that (even) the gauchos in the Pampas are nothing compared to him...or, again, some combination thereof? But then, Rosas is, according to Sarmiento, a "bad gaucho." Also, there is clearly a more mature view of the Europeans--one that acknowledges and admires the good aspects of European civilization but indeed challenges the the imperialist, self-interested aspects of the European policies, which are content to be indifferent in the face of atrocities if it suits those interests.

This, in turn, brings up the issues of writing and power that we have discussed to a degree in class. Sarmiento is clearly aware of the potential power of writing to shape opinions as he shows throughout most of the book. This is most evident at the end, where, through his writing, he attempts to mobilize his fellow Argentinians in exile, as well as any international actors to help the cause of bringing down Rosas by disseminating information (through the written word) abouth his many crimes. Indeed, even today, the mobilization of international public opinion against dictators or governments that do not respect human rights may be more effective (though perhaps not as often as it could/should) than the use of military force. Of course, it still depends how powerful the human rights violators are in the international arena and their ability to withstand or, sadly, (in the case of big powers), more often ignore such negative attention without consequences...Is the pen really mightier than the sword? I am leaning that way...though I'm sure there are many who do not share that opinion...but I ramble...

Another thing I noticed is the final treatment of Quiroga which is almost sympathetic...Perhaps it was only meant as a way to highlight that Rosas was even more brutal...but of course, we are left with only Sarmiento's word on that. Of course, that, taken within the context of the last couple of chapters suggests that those chapters are indeed th eintended focus of the book and the rest merely a way to set that up...but, I ramble again.

Facundo post the first

Not being very familiar with Latin American literature, I am not sure where to start exactly. Reading Facundo, one of the things that jumps out at me is the structure of the novel. Indeed, Sarmiento's vow to "evoke" the "terrible specter of Facundo" (31), which sounds almost like an invocation of an admittedly strange type of muse , the description of the physical landscape of Argentina and the catologue of characters have all the makings of an epic. All this is accentuated by the use of dramatic diction and very vivid imagery. It is also set up as a dialectic between "civilization" (good?) and "barbarism" (evil?) as many an epic before it. We shall see how it all plays out as we read further on but I shall now move on to other aspects of the work.

I found the earlier part of the book very difficult to get through though I am not exactly sure why. Perhaps I feel that too much emphasis is placed on the description of the landscape. But, be that as it may, I was glad to find the pace pick up as I got further along.

Of course, it is difficult to ignore Sarmiento's racist and ethnocentric ideas and rhetoric (with regard to indigenous peoples) and his prejudice against peasents and all thsoe who do not fit his ideas of "civilization." I find it very ironic that Sarmiento, as someone who is supposedly enlightened and possesses the education the lack of which he laments in his countrymen, accepts so uncritically the "sweetness and light," to borrow Matthew Arnold's terms, of the European "civilization," --one that he does not himself belong to. Of course, in a sense Sarmiento is a product of his time, as shown by his numerous references to science, or quasi-science (Phrenology), so popular in Europe at the time and which was used to perpetuate European colonialism and oppression of the "savages" in the colonies. It is also interesting to note the subtle tone of admiration for the goucho in Sarniento's descriptions of him, and indeed in the description of Facundo himself, especially in the final passages of Chapter V.

Test post

Let's see if this works...