How is reminiscent of a tragic stage? How much is remembered? Who is right and who's not yelling at others? How do you react to attempts to rewrite?
As the Owl of Minerva, the "intellectual" democratic of the new millennium, can only take flight at sunset, when the vivid colors of life give way to gray evening but not before having investigated everything, having said all have analyzed everything, and not, as in past decades in the heat of battle, as you would Sartre, Walsh, but from the safety and convenience of publishers, before the cameras, personal desktop, but with the conviction to continue to seek the "truth." Failure to do so is to be in denial.
the heat of the "democratic time" we live in tense time demands that make use of democratic institutions and the alleged potential of material and cultural modernization-looking, which are leading us to reconsider the very history of Argentina. This drives the stock opened on the 60's and 70's, where a certain political practice, with their conflicting ideological constellations, wrote a history that fails to happen, because the wounds do not closing, while justice does not appear, while not know where the 30,000 missing, who plundered the state coffers, who kept the business at gunpoint, under torture, while the genocide are not imprisoned, all, not some without obedience of life or end point.
Some "intellectuals", journalists, analysts, writers, try to resolve the problem and quote phrases and detached from what happened, it minimized, it becomes a reminder that there is more to be given greater importance of which has been given . But who did what? Who should pay for what? How should transmit to new generations of those facts that tragically happened? What led us to experience something? When these journalists and "intellectuals" comparing what happened in Argentina during those years with what happened with the Holocaust, was wrong. In the Holocaust perpetrators were prosecuted, and those who escaped or were not tried, sooner or later "killed" by the Mossad, How then Tenenbaum (Argentine journalist) can compare what happened here, with what happened in the Holocaust? If the majority here is still free, which was not returned stolen, missing were not found. "Tenenbaum know this reality and is handled with a virtual reality, forced censored? How are we going to look the other way because there are characters who are tired of hearing about this issue. I understand that we compare with the Franco dictatorship, but can not be so unhappy to stop talking about this time, to investigate, to analyze. Jorge Lanata (Argentine journalist and writer) in the editorial that presents every night in his television quoted on this issue to Simon Wiesenthal: "We can not live as if the Holocaust did not exist but not all the time talking about the Holocaust" . We have to talk all it takes, talk until the last of those responsible pay for their crimes, and to return something NO MORE occur.
The really central to this issue lies in the movement by which the recent past in both soil of their practice, is proposed as a separate distant object and supports a judgmental eye on one side or the other simplistic. Should there be review? Absolutely, we should recognize a political and intellectual legitimacy in the facts that in naming the past, present and keep doing justice, learning and teaching. What belies this form of behavior that seems to resonate in our investigation of this ominous past? The vacuum of values \u200b\u200bthat seem to have many of those who spoke, wrote and analyzed. Yesterday big "progressive" today Pointing mere opposition and righteous and sinners, for no other reason for being, that their judgments unfounded and sterile.
These journalists, "intellectuals" do not realize that the patient investigation of who collates the files used in the recent past, paradoxically, to put a protective distance from the urgencies of political events and allows you to make a complete analysis of the situation current.
must continue to think the 60's and 70's because the distance to events, the events foreshadow possible from elsewhere, from other moral judgments.
moral discourse that judges the past from the top of principles universal can not be separated from political conflict because, in spite of his, is always thrown into the situation and gone through some sort of compromise. Not to mention that time is not also talk about the ideas deployed, such as revolution or social justice, which are mounted on a tradition of meanings and values \u200b\u200bis still significant and in no way be ignored. Lanata
ignoring all this said, "I have fed up with the Dictatorship" ugly and wrong. We must not disturb that there are changes in reality. The 60 'and 70' can not be a simple story, with the free and the negotiated genocide, which destroyed the State and which benefited large economic groups, with impunity. His anger with the government can take to defend impunity (even indirectly). Asking not to speak of this time is asking too much, it's back to not talk about what happened in the 60's and 70's, so it cost us. Following the advice of Lanata or Tenembaum is back 34 years.
recent past events form the floor of our living present and exceeds the use that a government can make it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment