I really enjoyed the debate that we had on Wednesday. It was
a great way to summarize the differences between Sarmiento and Martí’s ideas. It
was sort of funny when we read and then discussed Martí’s “Our America,”
because almost for the past month, we have been discussing the liberal
ideologies of elites. Many elites in nineteenth century Latin America wanted to
Europeanize, or in other words, to model their nations after Europe and the
United States. Then all of a sudden, we read Martí’s essay, which basically
said the opposite. There was no civilization versus barbarism, but rather “false
erudition” versus the natural man. The people whom Sarmiento had previously
called “barbaric” and obstacles to progress, the indigenous people and people
of the countryside, now were to have crucial roles in Martí’s America. These “natural
men” knew their country and its people and therefore knew what the nation needed,
and so they must be an important part of the governing process. On the other
hand, learned people who had studied United States and European governments did
not know what their countries needed. According to Martí, European and United
States forms of government would not suit Latin America, because Latin America needed
governments that suited their unique needs; they couldn’t simply adopt other forms of government—they had
to perhaps choose a model and then adapt
it to fit their needs.
Thus, there are some considerable differences between
Sarmiento and Martí’s ideas. I would say that I agree more with Martí. Just
because one model of government works well for one country, doesn’t mean that it
will work well for others. Every country has unique circumstances, and must be
able to adapt to them. “Natural men” are needed to govern a country, not
educated people who supposedly have studied governments but don’t know anything
about their native nation.
I also enjoyed that we were presented with a completely different perspective than that of Sarmiento! This allowed us to consider many differnet viewpoints to infer our own opinion on the matter. I find it interesting that both writers made divisions in the societal structure.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I would like to disagree with you and say that Latin America was in need of both Marti and Sarmiento's ideas of government. In some senses Latin America needed European and U.S. models of progress. Latin America benefitted from the steamships, modes of transportation and communication that were developed with European influence. However, Latin American also needed thinkers such as Marti to "adapt" (as you explained) these European ideals to fit the government and societal structure.
Overall though I would like to argue that from a literature and persuasive standpoint, Sarmiento is more effective. Sarmiento has power and strenght behind his words where Marti relies heavily on ideals and literary analogies such as metaphor and simile. Where the reader might be inspired by Marti's words, they would be more likely to take action with Sarmiento.
A very interesting exchange!
ReplyDelete