There were many different ideas of independence through the history of Argentina. In 1816 the declaration of the congress of Tucuman was a formal act: the country had flag, anthem, currency and form of government. Decades later, for the unit was not an independent country without its own culture, to the feds, however, there was no nation without a defense of sovereignty. Thus, the Generation of 80, Yrigoyen and Peronism gave new meaning to being free. A few years ago in Clarín, Felix Luna summarizes and offers his views on which of them is over logic in this world of fin de siecle
What is freedom?
By Felix Luna
To my knowledge, the word independence took three or four years to join the revolutionary vocabulary in the United Provinces of Río de la Plata. Rather, it spoke of freedom and the concept of emancipation is reserved for a later stage, when the guns patriots avert the danger of defeat. When Alvear took Montevideo, that since 1810 gun pointed at the chest of the revolution, only then began to speak openly of independence, but by then the land had flag, anthem, currency and government. But locals were buddies leaders and advanced only step by step. When in 1816 the Congress of Tucumán solemnly proclaimed the independence, this was already an irreversible fact that the congress is limited to approved. Multiple senses
Independence was thus a homeland free from foreign domination. But the word was changed in connotation with the passage of time. To be independent Echeverría included a culture. For Roses, independence was the unrestricted exercise of what we now call sovereignty. The organizers of the country and the 80 men were jealous of political independence but understood that a nation like Argentina peripheral Tandri to make concessions to the interests extraneros if I wanted to achieve objectives that strengthen progress. Yrigoyen was some gestures and words in the field of international políticca expressing greater autonomy of decision: such neutrality or not joining the League of Nations. In the 1930 and 1940, beat the patch nationalist economic independence and Peron stated that this was a reality, at Tucuman in 1946.
The examples could continue, but I mean that old word that at the birth of the nation mobilized so many dreams and so much effort was increasing its significance. No matter that the inclusions were sometimes a pretext for political resources or had a purely rhetorical, the fact is that Argentines feel today that what was proclaimed almost 170 years ago is a far more complex conception of time. In a world as messy as today, no country can claim complete independence: the mere fact of joining the United Nations and many of its agencies somewhat restricted derivatives independence. But this can not be limited to no formal rites of our national symbols. I think the Argentines today focus the idea of \u200b\u200bemancipation in the country's ability to decide according to their own interests within a reasonable international coexistence and a cautious relationship with the most powerful nations. This seems obvious, but must be supplemented by the possibility that our countrymen may have access to physical and spiritual goods that make life something worth living. In other words, they feel that our status as an independent country is a defensible value, be worthwhile.
shared interests is very clear that the world was moving towards a growing interdependence and the concept of autarkic countries has lagged behind. Perhaps the independence lies for us, Argentina and Latin America, to give our people more education and an instrument of culture that allows them to distinguish their own collective interests, while managing a technology increasingly vital. Somehow this proposal enhances the idea of \u200b\u200bEcheverría. Does not contradict but full significance of what is proclaimed in a house of Tucumán when our country was just a sketch, a vocation fragile and vulnerable.
Source: Section Review in
Clarín.
0 comments:
Post a Comment