Unpredictable War of Limitations

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3FpT1s59Os&feature=youtu.be

Don Juan

Having an older brother for me means that everytime I go to the super market I see him pick out these magazines that would only be for players such as Soho and Don Juan. However, I never knew that Don Juan was usually a play, as ignorant as it may sound.

Don Juan is a play about this man who has serious commitment issue and apparently when it comes to love he can't fall right, left, or to the centre. He's a man of many women and who has married more than any other man at that time. Isn't this what any young man's dream is? To have many women and not get in trouble for it whatsoever, not having to marry one particular woman and stick to her for his whole life? Well, this is all part of the rhetoric of Don Juan. 

Don Juans whole life is an appeal to pathos because it's creating empathy between men who watch or read about this play and the main character. They want to be Don Juan. 

Now we could also analyze the rhetoric that is in just the title of this play: Don Juan. Don is someone who is somehow superior and respected in Colombia and what would Don Juan ever be respected for? Well, his many women. Juan alone also allows whoever's watching this play to feel a closer relationship to this character, it's all part of register and rhetoric.

This play algo emphasized the powers of temptation and beauty. Don Juan was never able to resist the temptation of having many beautiful women and this is exactly what in a way was both his recognition and damnation. Apparently fidelity was only for idiots. 

This is a view that is common in our society. Marriage is not as respected nowadays as it was in past generations. Nowadays people can get married and within a few days or even hours file for a divorce was as the case of our beloved Kim Kardashian. Has marriage lost it's meaning with time? If so, what do we stand for now? Is fidelity still common? Is it still out there? 

Descriptions Aren't Just Descriptions

Many times we read a book and honestly fall asleep if the sentences are too long and the descriptions go on forever. However, have we ever wondered what the reason behind these descriptions is? For one thing, descriptions (if you don't doze off on them) are used so that the reader can actually imagine the scenario that's present in the book. Isn't this obvious? Scenarios aren't that important in certain books but "In Cold Blood" sure has an accurate description over everything and everyone.

This could be due to the fact that the first chapter is actually describing the last moments in which these six murder victims were seen. You see, it's all kind of like playing Cluedo, you get so many descriptions it feels as if you're playing a never ending puzzle. It feels as if we're actually a part of the famous series CSI Miami.


There are many types of descriptions. but I especially remember sensory description, which in my opinion, is mainly used in "In Cold Blood." Truman Capote activates many of our senses through his descriptions, especially the sight sense. With this, his goal is to pull the reader into the story and get inside the characters minds. "It was from her that he had inherited his coloring-the iodine skin, the dark moist eyes, the black hair, which he kept brilliantined and was plentiful enough to provide him with sideburns and a slippery spray of bangs." (Pg. 16)

These descriptions are necessary in the way that they allow the reader to familiarize with the book's setting, but at the same time add a slow pace to the reading, which could be used to create suspense. Here we can see how the how can once again affect the what. Once again we are back to rhetoric.

The descriptions aren't the only things that characterize "In Cold Blood." As we begin making our way through the book we realize the many long sentences that are used. Sure, these could be used just because the Truman needs to fit these descriptions in these sentences, but there could also be another meaning behind them. Action is slowed down with these long sentences that include many run-ons and pace at this point, as was stated previously, plays a key role. I wonder if short sentences will be used as the murders are further described to add action and suspense to the novel?

Great Speeches... Many Fallacies

"Even in ordinary affairs we know that people do not know who rules or why and how He rules and yet they know that there is a power that certainly rules." 

Now, we as catholics know that this Gandhi's words are true and stick to our believes, but we must not forget that there are so many other believes amongst us humans. Gandhi's phrase excludes Atheist since he states that there a superior power that everyone believes is. However, Atheist don't believe that there is a superior power at all. Gandhi also excludes those that believe that there is more than one God since he states that there is a power that rules, but doesn't present the possibility that there could be many ruling powers. Therefore, this phrase is both a hasty generalization and a fallacy of false dilemma. 

Gandhi seems a master at presenting the fallacy of false dilemma as he does this again in his speech. " And is this power benevolent or malevolent?" Here, Gandhi refers to the power of God and basically questions whether this power, this supreme being, is good or bad. Can't this power be nor good or bad? Here two choices are presented when there are actually more. 

Gandhi's speeches are recognized for their strength and clarity. However, once we detail his speeches we can find hidden fallacies that could weaken his argument or point. 

Winston Churchill does not stay far behind Gandhi when it comes to the use of fallacies. In his speech "Our Duty in India" there are many hidden fallacies. "We are not entirely defenceless of without means of expression" This is clearly a tautology since being defenceless basically means you have no means of expression. 

Aside from tautologies, Churchill also uses the fallacy of Slippery Slope: "To abandon India to the rule of the Brahmins would be an act of cruel and wicked negligence." The British could abandon India and cut trade as well as any power they have over them, which is considered a reasonable act. However, Churchill states that this would be an act of negligence and cruelty, which is considered an extreme version of this such abandonment. 

Fallacy of false dilemma once again. This time, with George Orwell's: Shooting an Elephant, the elephant of course representing imperialism. The whole story if not only an analogy, but also a fallacy of false dilemma. This is because "Shooting an Elephant" implies that you can either support imperialism or go against it. Is it not possible to maintain a neutral position toward the subject? 

Apart from this, the story also has fallacies within the huge plot fallacy. For instance, take this other example of fallacy of false dilemma: "All I knew was that I was stuck between my hatred of the empire I served and my rage against the evil-spirited beasts who tried to make my job impossible." In life, there are way more than two dilemmas so this clearly presents a lack of choices or situations. 

By reading these essays I noticed that the fallacy that is the most evident to me is that of false dilemma because honestly, it allows you to question absolutely everything. Spotting a fallacy is honestly the easiest way to break your opponents argument. Honestly, if someone spots a fallacy in one of my arguments I'd probably have absolutely no response since a fallacy is extremely difficult to defend. 

Fallacies...Good or Bad?

People say that hiding the truth is never beneficial to one's argument. As a teenager I've realized that this is completely true and that there is nothing that makes you win an argument more than spotting a fallacy and telling whoever's using it the error they've committed.

For example, the other day I was in an argument with my brother and he told me "Do all your friends like picking fights with their brother?." I realized that in a way, this was an appeal to popularity and instead of responding with a reductio ad absurdum fallacy (like mos mom's would do) I simply said "In fact they do, but who cares what my friends do? How would their choices affect us in any way right now?" My brother immediately stopped trying to validate his point and was left speechless.

Now in many cases this appeal to popularity fallacy does work with my parents, as long as it's not spotted. When I ask my parents permission to go to a party or somewhere in general I basically use the phrase "All my friends are going, I should go" but in a way more discrete way so that they don't immediately decline by saying "You are our daughter and don't always have to do what your friends do." What I usually do is mention my most responsible friends that are going and state how much fun I would have with them in a responsible manner. After getting to know my friends, my parents have their weak spots. For example, if I tell them that a certain friend is going to this occasion they'll give me permission easily because they know how responsible that friend is and that I can't possibly "screw things up" when I'm with this person. (My parents trust me but who I'm with is always something that they pay close attention to).

After analyzing my experiences I realized that fallacies are honestly not the best tool when it comes to an argument because, well, if the fallacy you're using is spotted you're basically screwed. They could be beneficial at some point, but fallacies are putting yourself at risk without necessarily having to. Who would want to lose an argument by simply not knowing what tools to use and when?

Selfishness, Not The Key To Rhetoric

We all want whats best for us. You may argue this point, but in the end you know it's true. There are those exceptions and sure, sometimes we do think of others, but mainly we want to benefit the most from our decisions. As we get into chapter 11 we learn that we have to appeal to our public, not to ourselves. This means that we have to present arguments that actually make our audience feel as if they're going to benefit from this.

Why is this? Our audience, no different to us, is also interested in benefiting from everything. They want to be rewarded and content. No one will agree to an argument that will not benefit them entirely. So basically, what this chapter does is teach us how to manipulate our audience by making them think that they will benefit from our proposal, allowing them to accept our ideas much faster.

Take for instance the Axe commercial that ends with the words "Spray more, get more." This commercial is basically telling men  that they will benefit from using Axe because they will get many more women. Now, men are clearly attracted to this commercial because of this. After all, what man does not want to be surrounded by hundreds of gorgeous women? The commercial is convincing the consumer that Axe is the best product, not by presenting many facts, only by demonstrating a huge benefit of this product. "The Axe Effect."

Now this technique is not only used by those who are interested in selling their products to consumers. Politicians also use these techniques daily. In fact, what part of rhetoric don't politicians manipulate? For example, Mitt Romney encourages tax cuts, mainly for the rich. Why would they not want to vote for him? They're going to be paying less money in taxes, which is technically what most people want. The upper class in the states is not necessarily the least selfish  considering the fact that they posses 75% of lands in the States. If they are this selfish they will certainly vote for Romney to get the most benefit. Looks like the rich will get richer with Mitt Romney.

Rhetoric... A Powerful Tool

Why did I not read this book before? Thank You For Arguing not only teaches us how to argue, but it also teaches us how to manipulate people without them even noticing... What a powerful tool. As I am reading the book, I decide to try these powerful techniques out.

Thank You For Arguing taught me that in order to get your parents to buy you something you should first propose something that seems absolutely ridiculous and then something that is still ridiculous, but that will sound more appealing to them since they have already heard such a pathetic proposal.

About a month ago my iPhone was stolen in a party in a horrible manner. This guy approached me and started dancing with me, then he attempted to "get flirty" with me and so I stopped dancing. As I was leaving, he pulled my purse and stole my phone. What a great person. Therefore, for the last month I have had the worst phone that could possibly exist. The phone is five years old and basically does less than a Nokia. In fact, Nokia's have a cool game called Snake while this one has absolutely nothing.

Anyhow, I sat down next to my parents and told them that I heard about a new deal that's offered by Uff that involves you buying a Samsung Galaxy and then paying only 55.000 pesos a month. They said no instantly. Why did they say no? Well, because the Samsung Galaxy costs 1.400.000 pesos. I didn't even have to propose a less ridiculous plan in order for them to say they would get me an iPhone. Now, my mom has not proved to be the most mathematically capable human being. She believes that she will earn more money paying for an iPhone that costs 1.200.000 pesos and then paying 120.000 pesos a month. However, since the Uff proposal sounded so ridiculous to her she automatically thought of getting a new iPhone. Thank you Jay Heinrichs for making my life so much easier.

Political Rhetoric In Boca

As explained in "Thank You For Arguing" politicians manipulate rhetoric all the time in order to convince their audience. We can see this in the Presidential Debate that took place in Lynn University on October 22, 2012. Here are examples of logos, ethos, and pathos as well as of demonstrative, forensic, and deliberative rhetoric:

Ethos: 

"We ended the war in Iraq, we focused our attention on those who actually killed us on 9/11." 

-President Obama 

"I and Americans took leadership in organizing an International Coalition."

-President Obama 

Pathos: 

"Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to help the Middle East."
-Mitt Romney

"We want people to have peaceful lives, which they can enjoy."
-Mitt Romney

Logos:  

"In nowhere in the world was America's influence as great as it was 4 years ago."
-Mitt Romney

"America remains the strongest indispensable nation."
-President Obama 

"We're 9 million jobs short of that." 

Demonstrative: 


"I was proud that our students came out number one in both english and math."
-Mitt Romney

-"We kept out schools number one in the nation."
-Mitt Romney

Forensic: 

"The policies that you're promoting don't help small businesses."
-President Obama

-We do it by reducing spending and number one is removing Obama Care."
Mitt Romney

Deliberative: 

"We are going to have North American independent sources of energy."
-Mitt Romney

-"We have got to champion small businesses where jobs come from."
-Mitt Romney 

Argument vs Fight

In chapter two we learn the distinction between a fight and an argument: an argument is used to persuade while in a fight you want to dominate your opponent. This is unquestionably true.

We, in high school tend to fight instead of attempting to persuade. In fact, I doubt that many of us have an argument with our parents. We might start off attempting to have an argument when we ask them for permission to go to a party or event, but when they say no, this argument may end with a "I never want to speak to you again, you don't understand me" or a "God, no one in this family gets my feelings." This has certainly turned into a fight and guess what? Against parents, no matter if your points are valid, you will never win.

My mother always taught me that there are three people/things that you cannot go against because you will hardly ever win: the government or law, teachers, and your parents. This book has proven her wrong. Apparently, with argument and it's tools we may manage to convince our audience into believing what we think.

Commercials use argument to convince us that the product/service their selling or providing is the best for us. One perfect example of this is the pepsi commercial in which our favourite artists of the time participated: Beyonce, Britney, Pink, and Enrique Iglesias. The commercial clearly uses argument as it manipulates ethos to convince us that Pepsi is the best soda option for us since everyone wants it, even those that are supposed to be fighting in the colosseum.

So if instead of intimidating your opponent or losing to a fight, why not argue? Your opponent doesn't realize you're manipulating him, you basically end up winning discretely.

The Importance of Language

Talking, it seemed to me, was the point of adult existence. I have never lost that sense." (Pg. 146)

Talking is our main way of communication and as was explained in a previous blog entry, without communication there cannot be any further advancements in society. It is curious how we have managed to create all these different languages and understand each other in such a way. We have created our own complex system of communicating, which has brought us to high-tech technology and developed nations.

Language was always the most important thing for Tony Judt, in fact, it was what he was passionate for. Judt enjoyed communicating and was a teacher for most part of his life. With his disease, he lost the ability to speek clearly as his speech became slurred. Ironic isn't it, how the most important aspect of his life was stripped away from him by a neurological disorder.

Judt might have lost his ability to communicate, but his ideas were still there. They were always trapped within his mind, waiting to be let out. This may be another aspect of Judt's physical imprisonment. Except this time, it's more of a verbal imprisonment. 

How did Judt deal with this imprisonment? Did he get to a point in which he could only answer yes or no questions? Did he have an interpreter? How could he write his ideas down if he could hardly move? Did he live in silence for the last years of his life?

In my opinion, for Judt language not only represented society and humanity, but also his freedom. Without his words, he was trapped in a world of despair.

The Reason Behind Judt's Zionism?

Even though it may sound completely ignorant, I was not sure what Zionism was before reading this book. Judt never explains what the belief is and I was therefore reading about a man who was interested in Zionism without even knowing what it was. 

This is why I decided to investigate and found out that Zionism is a form of nationalism of jews that supports a nation state, referred to as Land of Israel, for all jews to return to. Throughout the book, Judt sustains that he is not very religious, but at the same time he has a strong interest for Zionism. Judt criticizes jews that are highly religious, which makes me wonder how he would ever be able to live with them under one nation state? Of course, there is nothing wrong with these jews in my opinion, but if this man couldn't tolerate them then how would living with them be any easier? 

Besides, this form of nationalism requires a strong pride in religion, which at one point in the book, Judt says is harmful and unhealthy to a human being. Of course, any obsession or excess of something can't be beneficial. 

Another thing that stood out to me with this interest is that Judt was never religious at all and did not comply with many requirements of the jewish faith. In fact, he didn't support many of the main beliefs of the religion. Then again, Judt could have had different periods that he didn't discuss in the memoir in which he felt differently towards his religion.

Does Judt discuss more in depth his Zionist beliefs in any of his other books? Has he participated in any  been involved in any movements that represent this form of the religion? 

Free Cars

Tony Judt grew up during World War II when rationing was at its peak. In fact, Judt's sons and family members would say that their father grew up in poverty. This is exactly why Tony Judt appreciated every detail and blessing he had all throughout his life. Judt knew how to save up, which later helped him with the costs of his illness. Everything happens for a reason.

Judt never fully enjoyed cars to the extent at which his father enjoyed them. According to him, cars were a new toy to Western culture, which is why his father was so obsessed with them. Once there is a new object everyone seems to want it, but Judt grew up with these innovative cars, which made them seem meaningless. This is something that's very common amongst us today, we get so used to having things at our reach that we never realize their importance in our lives.

Judt's family had issued with his father's spending on this new toy, which caused many discussions between his parents. This is might as well be another reason why Judt learned how to ration goods and spend wisely so well, he learned from his father's mistakes. 

However, there is a valid reason behind his father's obsession, even though the spending is still not reasonable. Cars could have represented freedom and a new life, which at times of war was important. Cars could have given Judt's father more appreciation over life. Most of all, these cars represented freedom, something new at the time. They were a ray of hope and optimism. 

Offending the Gods

"It might be thought the height of poor taste to ascribe good fortune to a healthy man with a young family stuck down at the age of sixty by an incurable degenerative disorder from which he must shortly die. But there is more than one sort of luck. To fall prey to a motor neuron disease is surely to have offended the Gods at some point, and there is nothing more to be said. But if you must suffer thus, better to have a well-stocked head." -Tony Judt 

This phrase is found on the first page of the book, but Tony Judt maintains opinions similar to this one throughout the memoir. As stated in previous blog entries, Judt suffers from a disorder that has killed him slowly. The author states that the reason behind this disorder is some offence toward the Gods. In a way, he blames himself for this sickness in a way that not many do. However, I don't think it's his fault he has fallen into this sickness. 

In my opinion, we all offend the Gods in some way and you could be the most religious person there is and never offend Them, but still have the same chances of suffering from such a disease. Unfortunately, no one knows the exact causes of these degenerative diseases, meaning that they are unavoidable. Judt was not very religious, but he was jewish and did go to the synagogue once in a while. Apart from this he was very interested in Zionism and in fact, dedicated a part of his life to this belief. Regardless of this, he was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's and it does not mean he did something to deserve this disease. He just unluckily developed it in his late years. 

By a well-stocked head, Judt refers to intellect. This degenerative disease does not affect his head or mind in any way, in fact, he was reasonable all throughout the disease. Judt put a great effort into becoming highly knowledgeable his whole life, which is why he may have this gratitude toward being able to conserve this knowledge. After all, how lucky would it be to lose all those years of dedication? 

Which Language Rules to Flout. Or Flaunt?

Reading this article of the New York Times, we learn about two different types of people:
Descriptivist: Those that try to describe language as it's used.
Prescriptivist: Those that focus on how language should be used.

The proper use of language is essential since language is, in my opinion, one of the basics of humanity's existence. Humans rely on language to express themselves and communicate amongst each other, if it is not used properly, language could be misleading. In this case, the improper use of language becomes an obstacle in the advancement of our society. After all how could society move on if communication amongst it's people is mediocre?

I am not saying that words HAVE to necessarily ALWAYS be used properly as many prescriptivists believe with words such as which, not, if, etc. After all, even though how an argument is expressed is important, the thing that sticks to people is the what of that argument. Despite this, you should always be careful because the how can indeed change the what.  

Physical Imprisonment

Tony Judt is a very impacting memoir because the author is writing about his own life, recapping every moment since he has been diagnosed of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. To understand what his situation is, I researched ALS and found it to be a degenerative disease that eventually leaves the victim almost paralyzed. ALS is mostly known as Lou Gehrig's disease that leads to weakness, muscle atrophy, fasciculations, muscle spasticity, difficulty speaking, difficulty swallowing, and difficulty breathing.

Tony Judt refers to his disease as a "physical imprisonment." This is due to the fact that Judt wants to carry on his everyday life, but can't, he has lost the ability to move and thinks faster than he can speak. Judt states that the disease gives him the opportunity to contemplate the past, present, and future. However, he can't put to action these contemplations and idease because he cannot move and has lost all his independence. How has he dealt with this physical imprisonment? Who helps him out? Does his family accompany him through every step of the way?

In the past vide Tony Judt discusses his disease and states that he must live in the present, not thinking about the future. Yet, in his book he can't help but contemplate the future and what decisions he must take. With this, I can only help but wonder, how has Tony Judt dealt with the stress of this disease? Has he received any psychological assistance? 

Importance of What We Thing Insignificant

Q As In Quotaton is mainly an informational essay. This is due to the fact that the essay primarily informs the reader what a quotation is an defines it's purposes. Although the author at times expresses his/her own opinion, the essay is certainly created to inform the reader what a quotation is and the different definitions that have existed for this term.

The author describes a quotation as if it were something extremely powerful when it comes to writing and that, when used wrong, can be extremely harmful to a text or piece. The author has to know what he/she is doing in order to use a quotation and not let this take control of his/her writing, leaving him/her completely worthless and lost. A quotation can be used to sustain an author's argument and empowering him/her. I had never thought of a quotation as being so technically different or empowering, but as I read the essay, I realized the author is completely right. A misplaced or misused quotation does have the power to completely misguide the reader as well as the author's purpose when it comes to the rhetorical triangle.  

Paternostro's Register

"My grandmother does not have to think to answer this question either. She explains to me matter-of-factly that Imelda is the daughter of a trabajador from the interior." (Pg. 96)

"My grandfather asked Tulio if he was willing to work, "really" work. Tulio immediately said he was, with a si, señor." (Pg. 97)

With these two previous quotes we can see how Paternostro uses an informal register throughout the memoir. Paternostro develops a relationship with the reader as she describes her experiences with Colombia, her family, her judgements, and traumas. We can see how the register is informal by observing the diction. The use of words such as trabajador and other colloquialisms are what make the register informal and allow the reader to have that relationship with Silvana Paternostro.

Paternostro created the book to tell her experiences with Colombia and the war that the country has faced throughout it's existence. The author does not create the book specifically for Colombians, but as a one, when I read these common words in spanish that she uses, I feel in a way attached to the book.

Paternostro uses an informal register because it is clearly the register that was most suitable for the book. The author is informing us of the situation in Colombia and has no intent of "wowing" us with a ceremonial register. Paternostro does not use a familiar register either because she does not know the reader and at the same time has no interest of using a formal register because she needs to describe her experiences first hand while she develops a relationship with the reader as the book progresses.

Silvana Paternostro, Right

"All of this eluded me in my Conservative household. I have no recollection of ever having listened to anyone-not my paternal grandparents nor my maternal grandparents; not at school; not in the kitchen where the servants socialized- speak about the famous attack of Operation Marquetalia in April 1964, the event that most Colombians point to as the beginning of Colombia's destruction. If it weren't for the FARC, Colombia would be the paradise it once was. That is what everyone tells me. Why do I doubt that?"  (pg. 60)

In previous blogs I've criticized Silvana Paternostro for being ignorant concerning Colombia's situation. However, in this paragraph she is completely right. The FARC is certainly not Colombia's only problem and is not the only reason there is violence in this country. Many people, as Paternostro states, believe this and think that once the FARC is over, Colombia's issues will be resolved. Even though a peace treaty with the FARC is a huge step, it will certainly not end the violence in Colombia and will not make it a "paradise." The main issue in Colombia are the violent groups that are referred to as Pandillas. A great part of Colombia's violence comes from these groups, which are all around the country.


This is one of the only times in the whole book in which I feel that Silvana Paternostro has a valid and reasonable judgement over Colombia. I feel that Paternostro is right about the violence in the country but now about it's people except in this case.

As I get more into the book, I realize that Silvana Paternostro might not know a lot about the present and does say some irrelevant and shameless statements, but she does have her fact straight as she tells Colombia's history.

As for register, Paternostro mainly uses an informal register as she describes Colombia and her family. The use of words such as puente, aja, and casa nueva sustain this register, apart from adding a little bit of Colombian Culture to the memoir.

Ethos to Repel the Reader

Rhetoric is known as the art to discourse and is used by an author to facilitate their speaking and writing in order to persuade, inform, or motivate a reader. Silvana Paternostro has definitely not been very successful at doing so. My Colombian War mainly employs logos as it describes Colombia's past situations and shares data of that time. However, Silvana Paternostro does use ethos in many cases. 

Ethos can be seen as Paternostro explains that the Guerilla and Paramilitary will definitely want to talk to her because she is an American journalist. Ethos is used to convince by the character of the author, but she instead ends up expressing a completely foolish, ignorant, and snob-like statement. First of all, there is no way that these armed groups would receive Silvana Paternostro without hostility and especially if she is an American journalist. Many foreigners have been held captive by the armed groups for many years because of their curiosity and even Colombians that have tried to negotiate with the Guerilla and Paramilitary have been kidnapped for years. How would Silvana Paternostro be any different? 

The comment basically shows that Paternostro needs to grasp a sense of how things are in Colombia. The way to write a story about the armed groups is definitely not by "interviewing or chatting" with them. 

Another one of Paternostro's ethos comments that has no relevance to the book and frankly seems completely classist is one found on page 50: "I explain who I am, and she lets me in. I could have been anyone, but I know how to compel a servant to act using that commanding tone of authority and entitlement that I developed as a child." Is this the same "commanding tone of authority and entitlement" that she was going to use with the guerilla? 

With this remark Silvana Paternostro just shows once again that she has no idea of how to treat people fairly. Sirvienta is an extremely offensive word to use in Colombia when you are referring to a housekeeper. Paternostro should know this having grown up in Barranquilla and probably does. Who does she think she is? 

 

Better Off Alone

Something that has stood out to me throughout the whole memoir is that Silvana Paternostro does not seem to rely on others for absolutely anything. This in a certain way is a positive aspect because independence is always good and being able to get yourself together by yourself at times is also rewarding. However, I think Paternostro has closed herself out from her family at a harsh time.

What Colombia lived a few years back was terrible but family's stuck together and made it through relying on each other. Paternostro insists that everyone should have left the country but what about those who could not? In their cases, they would get left behind while their families lurked for a more prosperous future outside the country. Families would have lost their unity and support, becoming  weaker and more vulnerable. This whole situation in which family support is necessary reminded me of  the song "Fix You" by Coldplay.



Paternostro believes that Colombians who stayed in the country were ignorant and naive about the country's reality, but she never took into account that they could have wanted to stay. It is understandable and reasonable if someone leaves because their family has been threatened and is at danger, but if you have not been put into this situation, you really don't feel the need to leave your country, especially at the times in which it needs you the most. Part of life is not running away from your problems but owning up to them and accepting them for what they are. This does not mean that you should not attempt to fix those issues, you definitely should and closing yourself out is certainly not the best strategy.

This situation reminded me of a quote from Ambrose Redmoon: "Courage is not the absence of fear, but rather the judgement that something else is more important than fear." In this case that something that is more important than fear is Colombia's future and the well-being of it's people.

Potential, Innocent Killers

"I wish I could," I say, making an effort to hide my fear. Colombia still petrifies me. I see a potential killer in everyone's gaze. As I look at this man, I feel the same sinking in the pit of my stomach that I felt as a child at dinnertime." (Pg. 48)

Silvana Paternostro states this after a "beggar" has come toward her when she first comes to Barranquilla. How is this fair? The man is not even a beggar, he is a man searching for a job opportunity because he has been stripped of his lands by the guerilla. This innocent man shares his whole experience to Silvana Paternostro in detail, describing how he had to witness the killing of his own family and then had to defend himself with their body's.

Silvana Paternostro has not been in Colombia for many years and complains that she is judged for being Colombian, yet, how many times has she not judged her own people? To her, every Colombian is a potential killer, even if they have been victims of the armed conflict. After having experienced your family being killed you are already left with a terrible trauma and don't need people "judging" or "profiling" you for it.

Paternostro compares her encounter with this man to her dinnertimes as a child when she was forced to eat her vegetables. What is she saying? That she looks at this man with disgust? Again, Silvana Paternostro manages to make herself seem like a complete airhead. As I am reading the book I can only wonder, what are others thinking of what Paternostro says?

Silvana Paternostro mainly maintains neutral tones even though in this part of the book she has more of a paranoid and disgusted tone. Every aspect of Colombia that she's seen since her arrival in Barranquilla has disturbed her and she is definitely not afraid to admit it.

No Sense of Reality

One thing is Silvana Paternostro criticizing Colombian's on what she believes they are like and another thing is having a complete misconception over Colombia's reality. First, Silvana Paternostro states that Cachacos, people from Bogota, are sophisticated and aspire to go to clubs similar to those in London. Sure, there are those from Bogota that do go to clubs but this is definitely not the great majority. Bogota has a huge poverty rate because it is where people from all around the country come to look for job opportunities.

Apart from this, Paternostro also spends ages describing how Colombia looks like a doll. This is an extremely boring part of the "memoir" and just confuses the reader. The comparison between Colombia and a doll is completely unnecessary. Besides, Silvana Paternostro made herself seem senseless and idiotic as she basically said "The other day my niece made a  doll out of play dough with a broken arm and it reminded me of Colombia." 

As I get more into the book, I realize that Silvana Paternostro is an ignorant snob. As she states that the problems in Colombia aren't "that difficult to solve" she proves to me that she is completely and utterly clueless. Sure, its not difficult to stop 800,000 guerilla rebels from hurting the country with terrorist acts and drug trafficking. It is also so easy to deal with two extremist groups who apart from being against each other are also willing to harm innocent people. If solving the many issues in Colombia was that easy, Santos would not need the help of the United Nations and other organizations to attempt settling for peace. 

One of Paternostro's excuses for being ignorant concerning the country's reality is that she moved out of Colombia when she was 15, but this is completely invalid. I'm sure the majority 15 year olds know a lot more than Silvana Paternostro concerning Colombia and what it's facing. I am also sure that any Colombian that reads this book would be annoyed and infuriated by all the nonsense Silvana Paternostro remarks.      

Violencia: The New Name for Colombia

Fernando Vallejo stated that Colombia should just change its name to Violencia, you can probably guess why. The thing is, Silvana Paternostro mentions this in her book and also acts as if Colombia had absolutely nothing but violence. Paternostro discussed the violence and corruption in Colombia for 20 pages and once in a while, in a short paragraph, explains that there are those who are actually proud to be Colombians (this of course does not include her).

Paternostro confirms that 99% of the crimes in Colombia go unpunished, but this is not at all true. Yes, there are those crimes that aren't taken into account but it is sure not 99% of them. If this were to be true, jails would not be overpopulated.

There is so much more to Colombia than its violence and drugs. I have honestly, never met people that are so proud of their country. The nationalism in Colombia definitely stands out. Colombia is one of those places in which you can end up having an hour long conversation with a complete stranger. Paternostro expresses that people in Bogota are unfriendly and cold. This is most definitely a broad generalization. Sure, there are unfriendly and cold people in Bogota, just as there are in absolutely each city in the world. The author had a bad experience with Colombia for some reason, which we will eventually find out, but that doesn't mean she has to speak bad of the country and especially by exaggerating every issue there is in it.


Silvana Paternostro left Colombia when she was 15 and completely shut the country out of her life. Apparently she knows about the history of Colombia, but has no idea what the reality is like. She describes it as an "ugly reality that surrounds my family." (Pg. 24) There is much more than that. Sure, there is poverty, violence, drug traffic, but Colombia is also full of carnavals, the best food, laughter, pride, astounding landscapes, friendly people, amongst other things.

Colombians have worked hard to improve their reputation and have managed it but people like Silvana Paternostro bring the country down, which is a shame and especially when they dont have their facts straight.

Nationalism or Not?

At the beginning of My Colombian War by Silvana Paternostro, the author expressess her resentment toward her country, Colombia. Paternostro grew up in Colombia when the Country was extremely violent during Pablo Escobar's "reign." Paternostro describes the incident in which a comercial airplane was blown up by Pablo Escobar. She never fully describes the tragedy and in fact never describes it at all. This occurred in 1989 and although I was not even born yet, the day is still remembered with great sadness by Colombians across the world. After all, 107 innocent people died on that plane on November 27. 

Silvana Paternostro says that although she heard of the incident and was a journalist at the time, she had absolutely no interest in writing about or in fact reporting the tragedy. This is definitely not the reaction most Colombian journalists or reporters had at the time, which makes me think that something occurred to Silvana Paternostro in Colombia that absolutely traumatized her and left her with no desire of either returning to the country or just having anything to do with it for quite some time. I wonder what occurred to Silvana Paternostro?

In a metaphor she uses on page 3 we can witness this uncertainty toward Colombia: "I slowly started to put my hand back on Colombia's doorknob, unsure if I was capable of turning it or not." 

Also near the beginning of the memoir Paternostro describes the hostility that she deals with once she shows her Colombian passport in many embassies and airports. This is something I can definitely relate to because although Colombia's situation has improved, people are still discriminative towards us since they are not aware of the country's reality. "I was strip-searched in Miami, Houston, and New york; thoroughly questioned in Frankfurt, Rome, and Geneva." (Pg. 2) 

This type of stereotyping should definitely not occur nowadays and is something that can get to be very offensive. Not only do those that make ignorant remarks about a Country seem completely moronic and mindless, but they also have no sense of what a Country's reality truly is.