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.