Violence, Repression, and Politics
Soon after independence from Spain, two different political movements emerged in what was then called the United Provinces of La Plata. The first of these movements was Unitarianism. It advocated the formation of a strong centralized government and the subordination of the various outer provinces to Buenos Aires. In 1821, Bernadino Rivadavia launched many educational, social, and economic reforms which sought to bring Argentina under the control of a centralized government. However, the progress achieved by Rivadavia was soon undermined by regional landlords who feared the loss of their own hegemony. Thus, the second movement, Federalism, purported granting political and economic autonomy to the provinces, in opposition to the growing region of Buenos Aires and its influential land owners. Juan Manuel Rosas seized power in the nascent state after Rivadavia and imposed his own version of Federalism which relied heavily on a network of personal alliances among the regional land-owning clans and the export of meat and hides.
Despite the victory of Rosas, the bitter debate continued between Federalism and Unitarianism. Both movements, in an effort to finally unite Argentina, relied primarily on violence and repression in order to establish its authority. Hence, the political war of attrition gave rise to a culture marred by violence and repression. In effect, Federalism endeavored to eliminate Unitarianism and vice-versa. Furthermore, the deep political divisions in Argentine society prevented substantial social and economic change from taking place. This becomes more apparent upon examining the short story "The Slaughter House" and the film "Camila". In "The Slaughter House", we come to comprehend the deep-rooted hatred which existed between the Federalists and the Unitarians. Similarly, the movie "Camila" also depicts the existing political tensions, though this time within a family context. The "Slaughterhouse" also symbolizes the violent and intolerant nature of the Rosas regime, while "Camila" raises several issues, including class and gender, as well as individual rights. Hence, both pieces serve as criticisms of the time period due to their focus on the evils of violence and repression.
"The Slaughter House" by Esteban Echeverria denounces the level of repression in Argentina during the nineteenth century by depicting the Federalists as necessary butchers and the Unitarians as worthless savages. This polarization established by the author implicitly raises the question of how a political situation wrought with intolerance can be considered just or right. The exaggerated dehumanization, in particular, of the Unitarians by the Federalists allows for the justification of repression and violence. Thus, the characterization of the butcher in the story is to carve up the carcass of an animal. In reality, the very purpose of the Mazorca was to find and eliminate any potential or real opposition to the Rosas regime, most notably the Unitarians. These symbols are highly important because they illustrate the extreme levels of intolerance of opposing viewpoints or lifestyles. There are several examples of how the story exposes the relationship between the "butcher" and the "animals", or in other words, the Federalists and the Unitarians. The first is the role of the Federalist hero Matasiete. Cheered on by his fellow Federalists, he defeats a Unitarian in a duel. Implicit in the name itself is the fact that Matasiete is a butcher because Matasiete in Spanish means "kills seven". Matasiete's victory in battle also exemplifies the repression of the Unitarians by the Federalists during the period. Finally, when the Unitarian is captured, the Federalists shout "He's furious as a wild bull!" and "The whip will tame him". The image that has been created is this segment portrays the Unitarians as wild and animalistic, and therefore needing to be changed and civilized by the Federalists. Hence, the short story is indeed a criticism of the time period because the Federalists prove themselves to be just as barbarous as they claim the Unitarians to be.
The film "Camila" directed by Maria Luisa Bemberg depicts the complex relationship between a young woman, Argentine society, the political establishment dominated by Rosas, and the Argentine church. Like "The Slaughter House", it is also a criticism of the repression and violence of the period. The protagonist, Camila, is the daughter of an elite, land-owning father in the city of Tucuman. As a young female aristocrat, she is predestined to either enter into the convent or to be married by her father to a gentleman of a similar social and economic background. Nevertheless, Camila defiantly rejects her predestined role in Argentine society by actively seeking knowledge through foreign books, and searching for love instead of forced marriage. Much to the dismay of her father, a supporter and beneficiary of the Rosas regime, she adamantly opposes the Federalist doctrine because of its reliance on repression and violence in order to achieve its ends. The story is further complicated by the sexual relationship between Camila and a young priest named Ladislao. Fearing their imminent rejection and ostracism from family, society, and church, the two lovers flee to a different region of the country where they become school teachers. Ultimately, they are discovered and sent to prison where they are both sentenced to death even though Camila is pregnant. Meanwhile, Camila's father and the Rosas government refuse to pardon them, and they subsequently become scapegoats for impure, improper, and scandalous behavior according to the rigid rules of Argentine society, government, and church. Lastly, the two are executed by a firing squad without a trial. The movie lashes out against the Rosas regime and its varied manifestations. First, the viewer must consider the rights of women or lack thereof during the time period in this particular family. Camila's father staunchly represents a machista society in which men determine the future of their daughters, against their own will if necessary, as is the case with Camila. Second, the viewer is led into distrusting the government ability to respect individual rights, and more importantly examining the violent execution of Camila and Ladislao as a means to repress the rest of society. Hence, the movie challenges the notion that the government sought to control society by repressing it with violence. Moreover, it poses the question of how ridiculous it is for two people to be executed because they were in love. Thus, the movie "Camila" criticizes the violence and repression characteristic of the Rosas regime.
The divisions created in society because of the violent and repressive nature of the Federalists and the Unitarians are numerous. The two pieces, "The Slaughter House" and "Camila" are both examples of rejecting violence and repression as a means to forge a society, government, and country. Unfortunately, Argentina was not alone in that many other countries suffered from a similar polarization of politics, though in the form of Liberalism vs. Conservatism. Currently, Latin America appears to be moving in direction of less repression and political violence. However, the political polarization as presented in both "The Slaughter House" and "Camila" still endures. Thus, until this changes, the political and culture polarization illustrated by "The Slaughter House" and "Camila" will continue to hinder societal reconciliation.
Click here to let Roberto know if you wish to respond to this essay
Back to Essays