Hydroment Grout Suppliers
A country built on myths ...  |
| there more books of this kind written by Juan Miguel Zunzunegui but I could not get them. |
"What would you think if you say that Mexicans are descended from the Aztecs, the English conquered Mexico not that there is nothing heroic about Cuauhtemoc, Hidalgo was a priest who fought without a clear objective Santa Anna did not sell the country, while Juarez put them on a silver platter to the northern neighbors, the Boy Heroes are just a poem, that Diaz gave us modernity, there is Mexico, not because of the Revolution but in spite of it? "  -------------------------------------------------- ------------------- |
| This post is rather long and will deal with history. |
In September 2010 I wrote in the blog
an entry called "De Miguel Hidalgo, the Pípila and other things ..."
. It superficially talked about the history of Mexico (which we are taught in the school buildings) is manipulated to heighten, even a little, nationalism in us (in all countries do that.) However, in the comments area
ringo696 asked if there was any place where he could dig deeper into the subject because he had been interested. As I had put in the post some examples of historical differences that came to my mind at that moment I said it would investigate where I could get the information I had learned over several years and in different ways.
On labor issues, academic and location was never able to collect all information to respond to your comment. Most of the books / magazines / newspapers that I learned several interesting facts were not in Culiacan but Escuinapa, others read in the library of the municipality or in my school (yes, when I had a spare hour I went to the library to read xD), some sources are magazines of various natures they brought with them stories about Mexico, many of them are not even now in my possession. So here I apologize to ringo969
for not having replied: (. entry I hope this can clear even a little phone doubts.
-------------------------------------------- -------------------------  |
| "Party People, confident, friendly, witty, host first, with strong family values united workers, solidarity and the CONCACAF giants ... are some of the many lies and myths that we love about ourselves again, though neither is true. In fact, do not make us unpatriotic in the eyes of many of our countrymen. " |
(Mexico: The History of a country built on myths - JM Zunzunegui - page 9)
(or as English to English
"The preferred ... "instead of
is a short phrase, but convincing and accurate. It is a simple statement but difficult to accept, mainly because it would knock down many beliefs that are supported our life, our existence. Already said the scientist Richard Dawkins
in that famous letter he wrote to his 10 year old girl and I rescued a piece to fit the topic I want to address.
"People think certain things just because many people have believed the same for centuries.
That is the tradition. The problem with tradition is that no matter how old it is a story, it is equally true or false that when they invented the idea original. If you invent a story that is true, it will become true because it is passed on for centuries, for many centuries they are. "
" Mexico: the story of a country built on myths
is not only a good book, is a necessary book. So necessary is that, if only for me, had given copies to thousands of Mexican families past September and November instead of spending on magazines
micro-
history and national flags
. I would put it as a book bound in public and private schools and it would give way to Members, Senators and presidents in office just to see what they think of him.
The book is relatively new (the first edition appeared in May 2010) and economic well (compared to other print media also came in 2010 and addressed the same topics historic building on the double national celebration). It took me only $ 35 in
House
although Law Libraries Gandhi
the price is about $ 95 (and unfortunately not currently available). What happens is that in the mall where I bought it normally finish books with amazing discounts because nobody reads and are only there gathering dust and taking up space.
If you can buy do it! Read it! and above all reflect the words written there! It's good to have another point of view).
The following is my opinion not so much of the book (which is excellent) but the subjects treated there.
* What is in italics and in another color are phrases from the book. EDIT:
time after purchasing this example there are two volumes by the same author and similar enough (physically) of them also speak briefly here and as long as they bring in their respective events:
- Aztec myth of the myth of conquest (the Mexican origin indecipherable).
- The Story of a massacre by the power (the great myth of the Revolution).
It is curious that the average Mexican hard tends to question the way we are governed, the way in which a political party has certain issues. We question the laws, rights, crime, corruption and even the economy and education in general, but rare, very rarely criticize the way in which our history is written. I believe that is why we think they're made, which at times had to be documented by historians of the period, then BE
to be true. Yes or yes, and conclude that that was how they happened.
Not really. That's bad, very bad.
not forget that the official history written by the victors and that is what they are taught to all others, whether belonging to the camp of the victors or the vanquished.
Probably many readers will say, "What good study what happened? "
,
Best forget that and start from scratch" or worse
"What has that to do with what we now?"
has to do everything! What happened in the past is what has made us what we are today. All that was in our environment as we are to forge a nation, all deeds, all the heroes and enemies, all the battles. would be different if circumstances had been different. To understand the XXI century Mexican have to look back and see what made us who we are. Trying to forget the past of a nation is like telling someone to forget their childhood or adolescence, that person obviously could not because his character was forged in the experiences that occurred in those important steps. You need to understand the story (true) to understand our current problems.
"Mexico: the story of a country ..."
is a strong book. So strong is that it includes a warning of two pages.
"This book is dangerous ..."
- says the first sentence -
"It is dangerous because it challenges all our historical vision, and because this is necessary, indeed urgent."
Juan Miguel Zunzunegui heart is not tempted to speak with sincerity deafening and painful (how we can boast of having strong family values \u200b\u200bwhen Mexico has a high rate of domestic violence?). Mexico criticizes it is necessary to do so, not because they despise or hate it.
The book can be summarized in something very simple: the official history of Mexico is poorly written from scratch. It omitted many things were changed and that unleashed so many conflicts of identity that we have today. In the end, we remain indigenous conquered by the English and 500 years later we can not overcome and turn to a page more important, a more promising future.
Zunzunegui sentence in their letters what so many others had already embodied in his books, essays and research:
Mexicans are suspicious, individualistic, with short-term view, wily, solitary, with identity crisis, complex of inferiority, etc.
. Obviously it is widespread but is necessary because the history is responsible for giving that collective identity in Mexico and its inhabitants. This is our letter of introduction to the world (and that later become stereotypes and misconceptions.)
Another error to comment on the Mexican and mentioned in the book is the cult to poverty:
"We are poor but honest" , we say. Poverty to raise quality and consistent under the rest (the middle and upper class) are a bunch of thieves and dirty tricks. The truth is different when looking at national and international studies and see the sad reality of the nation that is presumed to be poor but honest. Each family spends about 8% of their income to bribe some time and the number increases as the low quality of life. People who earn the minimum wage goes up to 18% of their income. Mexico ranks high on the list of corrupt nations. Mexicans are generally poor, but not honored.
40 ° ca
shadow, that was the temperature was that day in Culiacan, Sinaloa.
These two girls were waiting at the ATM of a bank to sell his mother finished a cheap necklaces to passers-by. Although he had several. --------------------------------------------
---------------------------------
demonize money "the more money more problems" , "the more money the more you have to work" (we know that here in Mexico is very poorly paid employment) "less happy the more money you" Let's get one thing clear: you will have problems if you do not know to manage, moderate if you do not know if you do not
EDUCAS
to save, if you get the money unfairly or illegally, DOT.
In Mexico there are approximately 50 million poor people, not live, they survive, which is not the same. It is not even worthy. Is not it strange that the poorer a nation is more corrupt? Why do countries with good economies, low poverty rates and good quality of life have a nearly corruption zero? Simply because there is no need to corrupt, steal, bribe when using the live well (and not have to be rich to live well). Being poor does not make you happy, ask that to any poor (really poor) and since then we talk. People who have to devote to crime, prostitution. Children who work from small to help their parents to put a plate on the table. They do not because it is fun to do, do so because they are desperate, it is necessary, because they know no other alternative.
Let's look back to learn how to walk forward.
could say that the error is from the moment we say that
"Christopher Columbus discovered America" \u200b\u200b
, the author tells us something that perhaps many of you know, because if I remember correctly it is included in a book of History of SEP , Columbus never knew he had reached a new continent, made several trips and always had the idea that the land where he was India. Amerigo Vespucci was
who did know all this was a new continent. Nor is it correct to say that
"Spain discovered America" because in 1492
Spain did not exist as a unified nation but they were two separate kingdoms (
Castilla and Aragón
) united under a marriage that symbolized the union of these two great kingdoms, Reyes Católicos
.
----------------------------------------------- ---------------------------
The complex of the Conquest. since we entered primary school, we almost put this phrase to the force as they did with the National Anthem National and Pledge of Allegiance:
"The Mexicans the English conquered us"
. I loved the book analyzes this because I never fit in mind how this phrase could be correct. Moreover, it seems a huge contradiction (since when is
Mexico Mexico
?).
The preceding sentence may vary a few times and said: "Mexico was conquered by the English"
. In the book he shoots straight to the heart: how you can conquer a country that does not exist? Mexico
, as a nation, there by the English. Yes, even the phrase hurt and someone comes in yelling "Malinche!" (\u0026lt;- Back to the origin of that word is wrong, by the way). Mexico as a country did not exist in 1519 when the first Europeans arrived here. There were dozens and dozens of indigenous groups in a huge vast territory. They identities, traditions and languages. Were unrelated to each other beyond the commercial or the warrior, although most of them probably were indifferent.
They were not
Mexico. The Maya claimed to be Mayan
Aztecs felt the Mexica Aztecs felt Mexica, were Tlaxcala Tlaxcala, the Tarahumara were Tarahumara, Yaqui Yaquis were, etc ... NO but together formed a country (or wanted to be) , did not join to overthrow the conquerors (in fact there were several indigenous groups who joined the English to defeat the Aztecs).
European conquerors were the ones who laid the foundations of this nation, took under its power to different ethnic groups proclaimed themselves owners (yes, it was cruel the way they did, that too must be said) and put all under one colony. This viceroyalty was the foundation what is now a country called Mexico . Like it or not. However painful that process has been we can not change, and if we can not change why not learn to accept it better?
Mexicans were never conquered but were the result of that conquest . Most of us are mestizos, we keep in our genetic map
over 30 different ethnic groups ! We can not even cover the English in the same race because they were a combination of many other ethnic groups Asia and Europe
not think it's valid to say "we are more American than English" or "We have more Indian blood in our veins English" (\u0026lt;- my 6th grade teacher told us quite the latter sentence), are we? You really are? I will give you an example: If you have a child who bears more physical resemblance to his father that his mother is it more a son to him than to her for that simple fact? The same applies to us.
is curious then to see how we pride swells when speaking of the Mexican mestizo, our race of bronze, our cosmic race (as the famous essay by José Vasconcelos ), proud descendants of Amerindians prodigies, geniuses of the Americas, after the Indian denigrate or ignore it as well. And so we stayed, hoping to eventually race Vasconcelos cosmic glow. In hope we are geniuses, we waited patiently for the last 200 years and still here, sitting for not getting tired. We are the land of eternal patience. We like to think instead of act. Change frightens us and why not take the first step.
The famous "caste" that Europeans
is implemented in the collective conscious of the average Mexican. Although we believe there are superior and inferior races. We see the Indian as the lowest and between your skin clearer the higher your position. Maybe we do not say out loud but it is an open secret that we all know. And if we have to blame someone for our innate racism because there are the English to justify everything "that's what they taught us" . "Mexicans will never forget" , they say. I would say that Mexicans do not forget when they want to forget everything else because we are experts in collective amnesia. Abroad tend to brand it as racist but we do not realize that we ourselves discriminate the Indian, a direct descendant of our ancestors. "Mexico, the Aztec country" (although almost nobody falls for them.)
Tlachinolli Atl. At school we have the legend of this indigenous group the mythical city of Aztlan who wandered for 100 years to find the signal given by their god Huitzilopochtli . Seeking an eagle devouring a snake on a cactus. And in golf, back-where-is-the-ball-is-where-wilt-the-next-shot (although there is a hole with water on the way), supposedly the place where they saw the animal with its prey the peak was nothing more and nothing less than an islet, a small island that arose in the middle of Lake Texcoco
. At that time the Aztecs were not as great as they would later, were a minority and neighboring villages not looked favorably.
But questions arise almost by instinct: do you really were a nomadic people for over a century? "They looked exactly an eagle devouring a snake on a cactus and found it or maybe one of these elements were built later? Is settled where they saw the eagle or where it allowed key people? "Most Mexicans are descended from the Aztecs? What about the dozens and dozens of indigenous groups who had at that time along what is now Mexico
territory and never met the Aztecs? When does the conquest and when end? At what point, then, won the "Mexican"? Mexican Who was then? When
Mexico began to be a country?
The author also reminds the Malinche punished
to the Mexican people tend to look like a traitor, traitor but why? Because he betrayed the Aztecs, obviously. So logically if the Aztecs betrayed betrayed all
Mexico
right? No, we know that the Aztecs were not Mexico, nor were a country, nor wanted to. Zunzunegui
says it best nobody: "Dona Marina" was a slave since childhood, had no choice, no voice or anything. It is very easy to judge from the perspective of the freedom we have now but it is wrong not to investigate further and stay with the version that everyone says. Also how can you betray the enemy?
The Aztecs were not saints and that's about all, I suppose, we know. They were a warrior class, that's what made them great and it was that which made them dig their own graves. Peoples oppressed neighbors, bowed and attached to his lordship. There were many other indigenous peoples who hated the Aztecs for its governance (in addition paid their taxes with enemy blood), took the arrival of the conquistadors to join them and attack them. The Aztec empire was overthrown, not by 300 English soldiers, but thousands of indigenous people so angry and tired of oppression, although the disease also helped to extinction.
If we take away the merit to all those Indians and torches him all the blame for the decline of this empire warrior and fighter for the three hundred English sorry for you but that would be a fool here would be the Aztecs who were left overcome with so few people.
In his book "The myth of the myth Azteca de la Conquista "
the author
this chapter titled" The Fall of the Aztec Empire "
, which in many books
is called" The Conquest of Mexico "
and adds that he himself below " .. . overthrow the Aztecs and take their capital is far from the Conquest of Mexico. "  |
| Miguel Hidalgo, the Father of Independence who shouted Viva Fernando VII! |
Painting
Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla
I do not want to criticize Miguel Hidalgo for daring to proclaim independence and as a bonus cheering the king, that here he is less culpable.
" And why the English criollos wanted independence from the mother country? Why not enjoy all the privileges that the Spaniards had on everyone wanted to be the ones who wanted to rule the New
Spain.
This was very to see the decline of the English Empire
and the invasion of Napoleon Bonaparte to Spain. The author of the book gives a more in white and a couple of pages later he adds:
"(...) in 1808, when they started the so-called liberation movements against Spain, New Spain was already a French possession (...) As they say, was not even clear against whom it fought for independence. " (P. 66).
Considering that put Napoleon as king of Spain
his own brother Joseph I
1808 to 1813, then more logical to know why
That was the idea that shared Hidalgo. The murals, books and the scream, the priest put us side by side known:
Ignacio Allende (another native) but looking through there and there one will notice that they put fuchi face once in a while xD. On the other hand we have
José María Morelos
(son of English parents as the other two) that unlike
Hidalgo did want full independence and refused to rule
Fernando VII. Finally in 1821
Agustín de Iturbide
achieved independence
this post would be eternal, as well as talk about the very Revolution.
"The Mexican Revolution was a myth or a real revolution?
" What we need is a great reflection: they are almost a hundred years into this supposed revolution social improvement and the country. This can lead to only two conclusions: either the so-called revolution was a failure, or simply not so. "(p. 83).
Antonio Gómez Delgado, a child soldier.
in Mexico has always struggled for power, always. Taking a look at the history of the struggle for power is a constant and here comes up another Mexican common factor: individualism at its best. The alleged 1910 revolution became more than evident that, several leaders took up arms ... but for different reasons. So the key question here is: What was the reason for that movement? If we asked them Maderistas evoke that of
"Effective Suffrage, No Reelection" and talk about the cruel (and always harmful)
Díaz dictatorship . Then, if the objective of the armed uprising was to overthrow the government of Porfirio Díaz
(which happened in 1911) why the fight lasted so many years?
Francisco I. Madero
struggled
him and his people, cared little or nothing to change the structure of Mexico and the problems that were the other leaders. Diaz
was exiled to France
, no longer the enemy and once
Madero came to power and does not give anything to anyone many began to look at it the wrong way and the whole situation leads to the familiar
"Ten Tragic"
. Installs in Mexico
another dictatorship at the hands of
Victoriano Huerta, all leaders are united (for the first and only time) to overthrow him and there is "all against one and all against all." The power struggle never ceased, so much so that even takes place at what time the Revolution ended because as it was not clear why they did not know either when fighting would end.
Most warlords whose statues, avenues and schools up along the entire Mexican territory are heroes who not only killed each other, but their main goal was to sit in the presidential chair for no improve the country but to have the power to benefit his people, forget the rest.
the author of "The Story of a massacre by the power"
described as a struggle for the presidential seat ambitious among aristocrats vs. aristocrats.
revolution What is "social" something like this? Passive society, which was not fighting, he feared any armed group that passed through its streets.
But history shows two social heroes, El Centauro del Norte and  | The
| Zapata. As their nicknames as they say, one fought in the north, one in the south and the two fought for their own reasons, other than both. We know that Villa was not known to be an angel of God, had a criminal past and not shaking hands with time to kill, plus loyalty was not part of it (but do not stand a betrayal). Conflict Emiliano Zapata's | was old, he struggled from
1908 ground for people
Anenecuilco. They knew their limitations and to change to Mexico with his ideals was not in their priorities.
In fact
Villa scored his revolution in a media circus, even movies made for Hollywood! "What went wrong, without going any further, was the revolution. The Diaz error was not stepping down, or age (...). This provoked an uprising that he had a project nation, only the intention to take power. Before going into exile, Diaz said goodbye to those in the port of Veracruz, "You have unleashed the tiger, who now see the tie." And it was. Although not quite out of Veracruz where the Mexicans are killed each other, never to establish a project, only to take power. The war lasted over 20 years. "(P. 93).
the end, after more than a million dead, killed by other heroes heroes of decades in which no Mexico did nothing but fight without knowing exactly why, revolution, social allegedly concluded. Was won by the same people who started the powerful, ambitious. Each Plan which was made at that stage was to ignore the current president, not to improve the country.
Much ado about nothing and as the author says in one of his books: Mexico, most in their paper, gave a 360 ° and continued walking down the same path. It overthrew a dictatorship to establish a "democracy" ruled by a dictatorial political party. Mexico in the XXI Century: All is not lost.
The truth can be found in front of your eyes, as in this case, in Tlatelolco.
(this image came to me in an email, if anyone knows who the author is so grateful.)
--------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Someone once told me that Mexico is as it is because this is her destiny. It saddened me because I think his answer too conformist, and the answer he would give someone who is tired of fighting, the vision of the defeated, the vanquished, which always taught us.
Si ya sabemos que el pasado de México no es tan glorioso como creíamos por qué mejor no tomamos otra dirección, un rumbo distinto. Conformarnos con lo que tenemos es demasiado triste. Dejemos de lamentarnos de nuestro pasado y culpar siempre a los demás de nuestras desgracias. Somos buenos para señalar al otro como el culpable, nunca tenemos nosotros la culpa, los demás siempre son los malos.
Durante AÑOS (cada festividad patria o día del descubrimiento de América
) escucho las mismas quejas de siempre, quejas ridícula y sin sentidos que son hechas a base de ignorancia y maldad solo para ocultar nuestro nuestro ya patético present.
"Spain is to blame for our poverty because they stole all the gold we had,"
And once again we see the English as a ruthless bastards and we side with the Indians back again defeated vision when in fact those people were not Mexican nor wanted to be.
"The U.S. is to blame, we stole half the country!"
not stole it, we already know, and this again serves to justify our incompetence. The books
Zunzunegui
points out something that often goes almost unnoticed in the textbooks and that is the case of
Chiapas and Yucatan
Republic
but as the war and annexed it the win as best we shut your mouth and look elsewhere. And another thing, who told Mexico the territorial greatness of a country is synonymous with economic wealth?
Enough of blame, to point the finger. Shame we should give the blindness so full of ignorance that we project in this regard. Enough also always looking for an excuse for everything, to not accept that we have failed. The fault always lies with the government, institutions, drug trafficking, neighboring countries, globalization, etc., but never us. And when the failure comes from above so uncomfortable situations arise such as that made by President Felipe Calderón
in June 2009 to say that the young are slaves to the drug because they believe in God. Blaming the lack of faith (atheism in this case) is trying to hide incompetence, not only of the three branches of the union but also the family and school education. You hide behind a justification of the Inquisition era. Too many to mention here the reasons is a matter of logic know what I mean. A little thought, a couple of global studies and an open mind is what will help you understand why the words of the President were so inappropriate. The President took advantage of that, knowing that when you mention God in your response, and nothing can be questioned.  The lack of questioning is another factor that Mexico lacks, his passivity in the face of things, that's what built the myths of official history, lack of motivation to question everything. Zunzunegui |
says it better than anyone, taught us the history of Mexico as irrefutable dogma when in fact history alone is an inexact social science changed the taste of each country, but ours is far from satisfactory. So we continue to believe that the Aztecs were indeed an eagle devouring a snake on a cactus, six cadets who died defending their homeland and one of them to be wrapped with the flag in a last act of patriotism. So we think that Hidalgo dreamed of independence and in Mexico there was a genuine revolution in the twentieth century. NEED seems to believe that everything was true because otherwise we are lost and nothing would make sense. Do not question our past because it is glorious and beautiful, it's worth teaching it but everything is a vicious lie.
|
The problem in this country is to introduce our saints and heroes and villains as vile heretics. You can not judge a person like that, we must understand that our heroes were people with thousands of defects, with hundreds of issues, with ideas often ridiculous, sometimes great. We must also accept the bad of the story also made Mexico a better place (a
Porfirio Díaz
owe modernity, for example), blundered badly but is it worth to emphasize their successes forget their shortcomings? Stop generalizing, before being heroes or villains were human beings who fought for their * own * ambitions and some of these ambitions did not include the entire country.
"As Mexico is a"
(or as Germany or Italy, or as South Africa, or as Haiti, blah, blah, blah).
Flag of Mexico (LKML) enough, too, to join only when it suits us, either to
"mind the mother"
a foreigner or to highlight something that proudly says nothing about us as country and speaks only one. occasionally experience this wonderful Mexican patriotism and pride I do not know where we get Do you remember that I mentioned above that Mexicans are individualists? We are, indeed we are, succeed individually but not as a group. For example, we celebrate every goal he gets
"The Chicharito" Hernandez for Manchester United, although the Mexican National Team
be a mediocrity. But here we have Frida Kahlo
, it was a great Mexican painter (daughter of Hungarian Jewish father and English mother), we also have Salma Hayek, the actress who triumphed in the U.S. (whose father is of Lebanese origin and mother of English descent), Carlos Slim Helu
is the richest man in the world! (And family is of Lebanese origin). It is true that not all those who succeed abroad are people whose families are from other countries but still curious when we decided to be chauvinist and when we decided to take recalcitrant nationalism. We are satisfied with what they have done . Pride comes to us edgy remind Guillermo González Camarena
and contribution to television, the Nobel Prize for Literature
Octavio Paz, the chemistry of
Mario Molina, the astronaut Jose Hernandez , astronomer Guillermo Haro
, etc. . And then we talked Mexican wit, his intelligence, his intellect ... but few. Almost all have contributed to the world in terms of brilliant minds.
Hernández, Paz, Molina, Kahlo, Rivera
and all they had no competition because no one was at its height, there was a ferment of scientists, artists and athletes to take up the name from their homeland. We are left with these few that could stand despite the difficulties they encountered on the road.
 How many Nobel Prizes we lost by not making a revolution in the educational system? Instead fleeting glory and extol decided to have a Miss Universe |
| Mexican man richest, most beautiful coin, one of the most beautiful hymns (written by a native whose music is of English), most beautiful flag (which was won in a contest as false as vile and shameful racist enough in advance where Mexicans voted for them to choose their own flag as the best) or Worse, the mania that we have now to break several Guinness World Records ... because of something we need to cling to not feel so mediocre. |
Something is wrong when that is the closest we can presume, is the largest example of our stagnation in the sciences and the clearest example of our educational inefficiency that we have sunk, does the achievements mentioned above will get us out of misery and poverty? NO, we need women and men trained in various fields of technology, science, arts. But we prefer instead to make do with what we have. Or praying to a God and a thousand saints to see if they do us the favor as a miracle because we do not want to take the first step.
Despite what is said in this post and what it may seem I do not hate
Mexico. I love my country with all its defects, in good times and bad, with its mistakes and successes. I love its culture, its origins, its indigenous roots and his English roots. I'm mixed and I feel great to be so, I love my language and I love all these languages \u200b\u200b(or languages, such as want to call it) that spoke and speak throughout the nation. Your name and my surname is synonymous with our mestizaje. But the fact that Mexico loves
not mean that I will be able stay silent about their mistakes, I will accept everything just because someone tells me that this is his destiny. Why instead of "mind the mother" to every foreigner who says something bad about us not prove with facts and education around? Enough to cling to the past, it is time to accept our mistakes and look to the future, they say, is more promising. And this is the reason I want to study history. It is, as you can see, a science that I love:). And I leave the definition Mario Vargas
Llosa gave
patriotism during his speech on receiving the Nobel Prize
Literature :).
"Do not confuse the ear nationalism and rejection of the" other "provided seed of violence, patriotism, feeling healthy and generous love for the land where one saw the light where their ancestors lived and forged the first dreams, familiar landscape geographies, loved ones and occurrences that become milestones memory and shields loneliness. The homeland are not flags and anthems, or
apodictic discourse on iconic heroes, but a handful of places and
people live in our memories and melancholy tinged with the warmth
that, no matter where we are, there is a home to which we return. "
can read the full speech here
(version. PDF) or here
(web).
and I have been saying that one of my favorite quotes is one in which 
Fernando VII. The thing can not be clearer: the first stirrings of independence assumptions were not against the Fatherland 
0 comments:
Post a Comment