Thanks to Felipe, I knew scandalous injustices as revealed by magazines such as "week" (which was its first director 25 years ago) and "Change." I asked the directors, good and honest my friends, rectify what is published about them, and I always listened. Knew where the false testimony.
is a constant in the writings of Mendoza. Can we really believe that the directors of week Change and honest? The same ever read on the then director and general editor of Time , Santos and Mr. Pombo. But the attribution high-minded to anyone who has a high social or intellectual seems a passion for this author. For example, in a written for many years on the causes of the accession of the English American intellectuals to communism reads:
Sartre did this apostasy. Just saw petrified in a bureaucratic caste of Soviet socialism, chose to support other ramblings: Maoism and the Third World wilder. "I was reminded today fever-French writer and journalist Jean Daniel, referring to the prologue to the book written by Sartre The Wretched of the Earth by Frantz Fanon -read what they could not find a colonized salvation but in the murder of a settler and a black in a white ".
I hasten to say that was not hers a case of dishonesty . Sartre was a man deeply honest . So was Julio Cortázar, who I met near: candid and honest. Simply French and Argentina, as many Europeans and many American intellectuals were seduced by an intellectual utopia seemed condemned to certain death to liberal democracy and the economy market and painted with bright lines the road to a classless society. did not see them, then, the unfortunate reality of a system, but its ideological exaltation.
can start with Sartre, who will believe that is dishonest? That will kill the settler and colonized black to white, is said to reflect an honest man, straight, what you would call a fair. And that's to say nothing of China's Cultural Revolution, which caused great enthusiasm: young people inspired by reading the Red Book chasing officials designated by the representatives of the Great Helmsman, what would be a similar image resistible for an honest man? I do not know if Sartre knew the achievements of Democratic Kampuchea, but I'm sure that would have applauded his honesty. For
Cortázar You can say the same: if the crime encouraged and propagated the same fallacies that you hear and read today in the media of the friends of terrorism, not because I had a perverse calculation on their popularity and their royalties, but because he was excited a just world in which writers such as he received the praise of the crowds (May 1968 made him a superstar ) and were automatically friends of the new rulers. Why they would not be honest? Both Castro and Ortega were the friendly and welcoming to Cortazar, and even admired.
The latest novel by Cortázar, Manuel book is about a group of revolutionaries Argentines prepare the abduction of a person responsible for repression. The publication of this work in Argentina in 1974, at the height of the urban guerrillas of the ERP and Montoneros was a great event, and no doubt had a hand in the wave of terror and chaos that paved the way for the dictatorship of Videla. The naivete of the man had much to do with the sacrifice of many young people who joined criminal gangs lured by a more historicist rhetoric similar to that of the Falange of what its proponents would like. (Of course, to be read by Colombians this means nothing: who will deal with reading the rhetoric of the Falange? If something is synonymous with "primitivism" is "prejudice.")
both the novel and other texts Cortázar endorsed niceties like this, attributed to the wife of a leader of the Brazilian urban guerrillas:
is necessary to realize that violence, hunger, violence, poverty, violence, oppression, violence and underdevelopment, violence, torture, leading to violence, kidnapping, violence, terrorism, violence, guerrilla, and it is very important to understand who implements of violence: if the that cause poverty or those who fight against it ...
What they are saying a model of honesty. The great writer was not able to understand that coups to seize and submit all the people are not very good ways to fight poverty. To him, in his naivete, enough rhetoric, the proclaimed enemies of poverty and attributed to others. But there are many examples of its accession to the Cuban regime, for which he wrote the most exalted dithyrambs, even long after they met the concentration camps and the persecution of dissident writers.
Given these examples of honesty one can be thinking about who may be dishonest? If these great sages unanimously recognized and indisputable intelligence are enthusiastic about a historical project that begins abducting and killing people, imprisoning ends and killing people en masse, what responsibility will be those who follow? Here we get to an old Colombian issue: who complete high school does not provide military service, who just can not break the law college, who is of good family can not be immoral. That view certainly corresponds to the social origin of Apuleius Plinio Mendoza, but also has to do with his own career. For example, in a recent column Weather says:
is likely, therefore, that those who defend those unjustly accused military support to Uribe, do not believe in dialogue or in the sanctity of the Polo Democrático or the Colombians for Peace we watched sympathetically as examples of an entrenched right. Old ideas or Goths, to think. But understand, dammit. I also went through there. Maybe I was even further. When I was leader of the Young MRL sent to Cuba, to indoctrinate them, more than forty boys. And several of them, returning, created the ELN.
The first thing one feels like a test of cynicism is inconceivable that the friends of Pliny A. Mendoza directed Weather, Week Change and believe in the sanctity of the PDA. But he understands, because he himself lived blindfolded to forty years. Is that the only way we dishonest are the ones who read the writings of these philanthropists and they are the most open interest in the return of the massacres and the recovery of the FARC.
The truth is that as a person close to the pinnacle of political power in Colombia in mid-twentieth century, Mendoza will have spent his youth dreaming of the highest dignities, as is obligatory in these people. In that there is nothing wrong, as people than as animal needs is almost unique goals and command recognition. The problem is the finding of the rhetoric that would enable him to realize the dream of Gaitán, a friend of his father, lead the masses and make power. The Revolution Cuba was the perfect model. Communism was the shortcut to power as it is for friends who are blindfolded.
If you think someone like alias Alfonso Cano is unable to determine when to start the head of the FARC to be dishonest unlike Sartre, Cortázar, Santos, Pombo and Brown. Would be more mestizo than Che Guevara, whom Cortázar admired and praised it bluntly, will be less honest? But that same could be said of all guerrilla leaders, except those who are pure mercenaries and ambitious than have to deal with ordering the castrations and executions. That is, unlike those who are of lower strata.
And while not understanding that responsibility of those who think and write, those belonging to underprivileged social groups simply going to be tolerable to kill people with rhetorical send subtle and elegant, the real culprits are those who have not read enough to handle.
By Jaime Ruiz. Atrabilioso columnist.
0 comments:
Post a Comment