The Inevitability of Being Silvana Paternostro
I have much criticized Silvana Paternostro. In fact, all my blogs on My Colombian War contain some form of criticism. The reason for this is that I dislike her intentions, disagree with her opinions, and mainly because I believe the book to be a useless collection of lies, glamorized exaggerations, and trivial observations turned into erroneous assumptions.
Paternostro is not the only one. Many people whom I know to ha
ve a background similar to hers act and think like she does. This gets me thinking: If I had been born a woman, spent my teenage years in elite Barranquilla, been convinced by my parents about the supposedly glorious past of my family and the importance of my last names, gone to Miami for every vacation, and then moved to New York to become a journalist… would I have written My Colombian War?
 |
| Inevitable |
The reason why Silvana Paternostro gets important assignments regarding Colombia from The New York Times is because she is perceived as an insider; a knowledgeable Colombian. In my opinion: she is not exactly Colombian and not exactly knowledgeable.
Paternostro was educated in the Parish School, were everyday she would sing the Star Spangled Banner and say the Pledge of Allegiance to the red, white, and blue. Then, in her mid-teens she was taken to a boarding school abroad. She learned to love the US and everything that had to do with America. Things changed when Silvana Paternostro studied in Michigan University. There, her naivety made her especially susceptible to whatever her professors taught. In this case, it turned out to be American liberalism. Did Paternostro have a choice in this? Not really. Her previous education had not provided enough tools for her to make her own opinions.
Finally, after being instructed in Michigan, Paternostro comes back to Colombia. In her hometown, she can now only view things with the prejudice of a misinformed left-winged foreigner. This is why she is shocked by a homeless man’s stories, in which among other things, he supposedly barricades the door from rebels by using dead children. Everyone who has lived in Colombia knows not to trust things said by the people in the street, they are not a credible source simply because they earn money by making people feel sorry for them.
Paternostro is just narrating things from an uninformed, shallow point of view. An example of this can be seen when she says that laborers in the infamous Masacre de las Bananeras “massacred by the military and dumped in the ocean” (p.91). Nobody dumped anyone in the ocean, that part was a poetical exaggeration made by Garcia Marquez when narrating the incident in his fictitious novel One Hundred Years of Solitude. Half an hour of Internet research could have shown her this.
Now comes the big question: Am I like Silvana Paternostro?
After all, I do study in an American school were Spanglish is spoken and the foreign culture is venerated. Also, I haven’t really had a first hand experience of the Colombian issues. Nobody has invaded my house with weapons, I have never seen a land mine, and I’ve never even been to most of the dangerous regions.
So am I like her?
I sure hope not.
Whoo hoo! I am sooo glad that i have so found you! I am a close cousin of this "elitist has been" her motives for her "memoirs" are for self agrandizement, agendas that i have no idea of and shock value. Great enlish ( who knows if others proof read her scriptsa)
ReplyDeleteThe argument is, what, ridiculous? Please...how superficial is the argument presented here: "She comes from an elite family and therefore has nothing to say"? It doesn't sound as though this argument presented here even attempts to get at the relationship between different social classes, different civil wars, and the patriarchal system of government that dominates many a Colombian government? This article here avoids everything that Paternostro addressed. So let's just flat out say it: your argument is just as prejudiced, but in a worse way as the argument just says "I don't like her" - sorry, if anything that's a pseudo-argument, infused by a bit of elitism if not a great deal of jealousy, as well as a dearth of any substantial information. Let's see you talk with the drug dealers in Mexico that Silvana Paternostro looked into and then I think you may have a soap box to stand on. Until that point your argument is nothing less than dribble. Congrats...for nothing.
ReplyDeleteIn your comment, you commit the “straw man fallacy”, attacking an argument I never made. Maybe you just misunderstood me. In the future, I will try to make myself more clear so simpler people like you can understand.
DeleteI agree it would be superficial to discard Paternostro’s point of view because of her (somewhat) elite family. The problem with Paternostros’s “journalism” is that instead of forming conclusions from the evidence she gathers, she fits her evidence to a pre-formed idea she has of Colombia. One heavily biased with an American neo-socialist ideology she probably picked up at Michigan. Furthermore, I criticize the unprofessional way in which she blatantly exaggerates things for pure sensationalism.
In addition to a lot of exaggerations, some of the things she says are just not true. The real question is if she has detached herself so much from the Colombian reality that she actually believes in what she says or if she’s just making things up for popularity and éclat.
I have no idea about her work in Mexico, but would advise you not to read her without some skepticism. You might as well get your news from The Onion.
Your argument, once again, suffers from making statements without presenting evidence, whatsoever. Sorry to make this so clear publicly, but you attack the work of the journalist without indicating what you are attacking, then offer something such as "American neo-socialist ideology" without saying what is meant by that. I think your argument projects the "straw man" - you paint something one way then knock it down, which means you really have no argument.
ReplyDelete"the book to be...a useless collection of lies" - in what regard? Let's think about Paternostro's book: she goes home to report on her country, and ends up reporting on her family. Why? Because within her family she finds A LOT OF THE PROBLEMS OF THE COUNTRY! Seems like a fair argument to me: as people we are as much a product of our countries' policies as our families' prejudices. In addition, being from a certain class she is able to see some of the ways that the Colombian elite, for better or worse, have shaped Colombia's present, future.
I mean let's discuss specifics here. Colombia has one of the longest running undeclared wars...on earth! It has one of the largest displaced populations (ok fine...internally displaced person populations, aka refugees that are within borders) on earth. Yet in contact with the world Colombia presents an image of Cartagena and excellent coffee. Colombia's president Uribe NEARLY ran for a third term - somehow he was persuaded not to.
So how did Paternostro discuss these enormous issues in her book?
First, Paternostro discussed some of the class problems. Well, seems like a fair way to me to get at why Colombia has a civil war, no?
Second, Paternostro discussed some of the fallacies of the Colombian political elite - she hinted at Uribe's style in her description of the event she attended where he gave a speech.
Third, she delved into the Colombian drug problem in her discussion of Barranquila. Let's not pretend this doesn't exist - Colombians are very deep into the drug problem and, as much as the market for drugs in the U.S., Africa, Europe, Far East that exists, Colombians are fully involved.
All right, so with those three points, let's look at what you originally wrote: "I believe the book to be a useless collection of lies, glamorized exaggerations, and trivial observations turned into erroneous assumptions."
With those three points, the book is not useless, nor glamorized, nor exaggerated, nor trivial. In fact, they get at the "Colombian problem" - this paradox of how a country with one of Latin America's oldest constitutions, a country of so much potential (and which, as you know, is making good on its potential in myriad ways) also has this very disturbing underside: of an ongoing civil war, of millions of displaced people (internal refugees), of incredible inequality (among highest in Latin America, which is among highest in world!); of its "leadership" in the drug war.
Let's also drop the issue on who's colombian and who's not. It's ridiculous. You are as Colombian as she is, and both of you are as Colombian as the Colombians in Colombia. I think part of the issue is an unwillingess to see the arguments on merit. Paternostro presents a case and you say it's not valid, but don't say why. Above I've said why your arguments make no sense. It would be up to you to respond with actual information.
As for me, hey I love Colombia. I am not Colombian but I have been there, been taught by Colombian professors here in the U.S., have seen movies, read books. Many of my friends here are Colombian or part Colombian - certainly a worthwhile group of people! Is my opinion not valid therefore? I don't think so - especially as I have taken the time to prove otherwise!
Actually, I read all of your blog posts today - that finally provided the context to this conclusion you wrote above. You make some valid points, especially regarding the cultural nuance in the translations. So, my apologies to you on some of my comments, as your overall reaction followed the logic of your earlier posts. Silvana could have certainly spent more time on this and gotten this right. Some of the reasoning behind Imelda also could have been more nuanced: there are a lot of reasons Imelda could have / decided not to become a rebel. Some of this could have been described in more detail - possibly by interviewing Imelda, going and seeing where she lived, etc. Maybe Silvana did not want to invade Imelda's space - maybe she figured that such things couldn't be discussed with someone who probably knew her pretty well, having been part of her family for decades. Maybe she didn't want to bring Imelda any further in the story than she already had. I agree that the treatment of the street urchins and Imelda could have been more nuanced, and this certainly would have eliminated some of the distance between the author and her fellow Colombians.
ReplyDeleteSome of the other criticisms you brought up in your arguments were quite the stretch - I think the "secuestro" research on your part was an interesting guess but only a guess. Thankfully you qualified that in your discussion by giving the author the benefit of the doubt. That is certainly appropriate given a few google searches really can't get at secuestros resolved in closed door negotiations, which from my understanding is common practice / was common practice in Colombia so as to protect the victims and given that, sometimes, local authorities were compromised.
I still believe, very thoroughly, that you and the author are probably more alike than different in how you see Colombia. In some ways the author's book was a bit of a self-justification - a complete separation from her country seemed unnecessary, as it requires not a little self-negation. On all of that I think your criticisms were certainly valid.
Unfortunately I think Paternostro gets a lot right about Colombia and certainly about many among Colombia's elite. The country has absorbed some of the world's problems and contributed to their perpetuation - the drug problem in Colombia cannot be blamed solely at the hands of U.S. consumers. I think Silvana made quite an attempt to get at the Colombian paradox, which is very much a human one - how different we are from what we could be.
What evidence is needed when by HER own state menta makes HER incredulous.
ReplyDeleteIt is as the author of this blog stated that has no basis to say anything about anything and being an elitist (as per her own admission) does not give her any credibility!!!