Seamos Libres (Biblioteca de la Libertad Formato Menor nº 13) (Spanish Edition)
Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online Seamos Libres (Biblioteca de la Libertad Formato Menor nº 13) (Spanish Edition) file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with Seamos Libres (Biblioteca de la Libertad Formato Menor nº 13) (Spanish Edition) book.
Happy reading Seamos Libres (Biblioteca de la Libertad Formato Menor nº 13) (Spanish Edition) Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF Seamos Libres (Biblioteca de la Libertad Formato Menor nº 13) (Spanish Edition) at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF Seamos Libres (Biblioteca de la Libertad Formato Menor nº 13) (Spanish Edition) Pocket Guide.
Besides, this text is mostly—albeit not exclusively—intended for a Latin Americanist audience, given the fact that English language and Comparative Literature departments have shown no interest whatsoever in any theoretical elaboration coming from Latin Americanism. The article by Abraham Acosta in this collection states, precisely, how much Comparative Literature loses by ignoring, at its own risk, the contribution of LASS. In Acosta's opinion, this discipline is reaching an impasse that could only be solved by questioning two of its most solid foundations: the notions of literature and the nation.
The work by some members of LASS, in Acosta's opinion, could be of great help to accomplish such a questioning of the discipline. He also suggests that the lack of interest of the original South Asian subalternists may come from their disciplinary background as historians This brings us to another question: did a desire for non-disciplinarity preclude the possibility of incorporating non-literary critics to LASS? Was it precisely the corporate interests of its members, who came in their majority from literature departments, what determined the composition of the group? Did non-disciplinarity end up meaning no other disciplines?
This has been a shortcoming of the group, I believe, and it has constrained its efforts to the limited world of literature departments. To be more precise, it has limited its area of influence mostly to Spanish literature departments. There were, of course, the token historians, like Coronil and Seed, but the group never went out of its way to incorporate anthropologists, archaeologists, political scientists or economists to its ranks.
It is my impression that a more multi-disciplinary constituency would have made it easier to live up to the promise of an eventual non-disciplinary work. Then again, this is contrary to fact and we will never know if this conjecture is correct. Eduardo Mendieta, a non-member who comes from another discipline, philosophy, seems more inclined to put emphasis on the intellectual heritage produced by Latin Americans to which Coronil was referring. In Mendieta's contribution, that shows a clear support of the work by Argentinean philosopher Enrique Dussel, a rather thorough overview of the different phases of Latin Americanism is offered.
He is more interested in the movement he calls post-occidentalism, which encompasses the theories developed in Latin America in the s. Post-occidentalism was, according to Mendieta, an epistemological revolution that took place much earlier than postcolonialism and subalternism, both produced by Indian intellectuals in more recent times In his view, postcolonial theory is so young and it is concerned with such a recent historical period that, as a consequence, it is not capable of offering a long-term view of the development of colonialism He follows arguments advanced by Mignolo when he states that postcolonial theory is concerned only with the second wave of colonialism and that is why its practitioners have developed an obsession for the issue of the nation and the national He also takes issue with the solutions given to the problem of the subaltern by Indian scholars.
He believes that respecting the absolute alterity of subaltern subjects leaves the status quo intact, and that the solution is to respond to them without trying to assimilate them. That is, the advantage of post- occidental thought over postcolonial theory is that its point of departure is the study of the first form of colonialism. This position is very close to the one Mignolo has been maintaining since, say, The Darker Side of the Renaissance. Although there are differences between Mignolo's views and Dussel's, they have been known to work together and even to co-teach a seminar at Duke University, so Mendieta's views could be viewed as akin to Mignolo's.
Post-occidentalism for Mendieta holds the promise of future universality enunciated from a world that is multiple and one in its plurality. If I am not mistaken, LASS recovered or revisited, without acknowledging it, the spirit of post-occidentalism. To my knowledge, the only subalternist who found some inspiration from Dussel was Mignolo— an inspiration that still shows in his contribution to this volume, which is, by the way, one of the two articles written in Spanish. I believe that Mendieta, by not acknowledging the genealogies and contributions of other theoretical traditions, and by refusing to see the similarities between the ideas and intent of Dussel and LASS, is making a mistake similar to the one made by LASS when it did not recognize its debt with Latin American thinking.
The fact that he criticizes the South Asian subalternists but does not address directly the tenets advanced by LASS, prevents him from acknowledging the contribution of LASS, which, in my opinion, is different from the ones that can be credited to the Indian collective.
As a matter of fact, I would even go as far as to respond affirmatively to the question Rabasa asks himself 83 : has LASS gone beyond the goals and objectives of the South Asian group? Rabasa is thinking mostly of colonial times Amerindians, but his thoughts are applicable to present-day ones too. I am thinking, for instance, of people like Roger-Echo Hawk, who is a Pawnee Indian who not only writes history but who also repatriates indigenous remains successfully. In him we see Western science at the service of the subaltern, but this time it is not the non-subaltern intellectual who masters the hegemonic knowledge—and uses it to graciously help the subaltern—but the subaltern himself in his role as historian.
None of these goals and plans are at odds with Dussel's ideas, which makes more notorious the lack of awareness of his works and ideas in the texts penned by former LASS members, with the exception, as we already saw above, of Mignolo. I would like to move now to the question of the concrete political strategies that should arise from a dialogue like the one I have just described.
Although it is not easy to elaborate strategies to have an impact on society and to escape the teaching machine prison house , I believe that the democratization of the university that Beverley proposes Subalternity and Representation 38 does not need to be the scholar's only educational goal. On the contrary, there is a lot left to do with regard to both the knowledge we produce in universities and what we do with it. It is my contention that we need to develop an agenda for the intervention of scholars of Latin American studies that goes beyond the boundaries of the academy.
Such an agenda necessitates, in my opinion, a subalternist inflection. However, it is important, first, to review some of the limitations of the subaltern studies project. One of those is the lack of concrete political strategies or plans that has characterized the Latin American Subaltern Studies group's activities. To this lack of concrete political strategies one can add the striking lack of monographs that actualize the theoretical foundation of the subalternist project.
One of its former members, Alberto Moreiras, wrote once that the moment had come to stop writing metacritical papers and start writing monographs about case studies. Otherwise, the use of a subalternist perspective will never be demonstrated To this limitation, one could add another, which is the shortage of studies based on empiric data produced by subalternist scholars. Although as academics we have less contact with flesh and blood people, as Clifton Poodry rightly states 29 , I believe that projects that promote solidarity with subaltern subjects are still possible for us.
For example, a project that attempts to retrieve from oblivion the role of the labor and the knowledges of indigenous peoples across the Americas in the emergence of modernity may be a way of practicing solidarity with the subaltern. An activity of this kind may have very immediate consequences for those Amerindian groups who struggle for their rights, today, from a position of subalternity against the dominant system. Additionally, there are other kinds of academic work that could have consequences for the different indigenous groups of the Americas.
Soares on the Guarani from Brazil, that purport to demonstrate, through a study of that ethnic group's material culture, the continuity of some of their cultural traits and practices throughout a period of sixteen centuries. A work of this kind, that establishes ties between Guarani societies from the distant past and from the present, could be used both to substantiate their land claims and to legitimize the rights of one of the ethnic minorities of modern-day Brazil.
This latter case brings us to one that hits closer to home for those of us working in the US academic system. I am referring to the new situation created by the passage of a law known as NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act , which has forced archaeologists and physical anthropologists to work together with Amerindians who were considered, before that law, as mere objects of study.
This law has made the positionality of Native American stronger than ever and their claims to ownership of their own history more effective, by taking into account their own views on indigenous pasts as knowledge to be considered as serious as that produced by Western science. I believe that we Latin Americanists can learn a lot from the struggles and the achievements of subaltern subjects in the framework of NAGPRA for a history and a study of the content of this act see: Jack F.
Trope and Walter R. Ferguson, Roger Anyon and Edmund J. Ladd; Billy L. Cypress; Richard M. This raises the question about the role of Western science in the production of indigenous knowledge and the degree to which it could condition their writing of their own history. That is a valid concern. However, it has, at the same time, the potential of helping different tribes to identify the cultural affiliation of human and associated remains of the past. It is, of course, a trade-off for the subaltern, but one with which some indigenous groups have started to experiment.
This choice entails, of course, as Larry J. Zimmerman avers, the training of indigenous subjects in Western science so that they can apply it to the reconstruction of their own history In this way, these tribes are being able to write their own version of their very own pasts, as Rabasa proposes. There is another side to this story and it has to do with the impact of the participation of subaltern subjects in the elaboration and control of our disciplinary agendas Zimmerman This would entail teaching an indigenous past that has nothing or very little to do with the one we have been telling hitherto—an indigenous past that would incorporate, now, the views of those subjects, the Amerindians, who had been hitherto considered as objects of study in our disciplines Zimmerman Science in general, Zimmerman tells us, must be put in a social context This should be interpreted, I believe, as a warning to any discipline that dispenses with the knowledge of subaltern subjects.
In his opinion, archaeology in particular would be able to realize its humanistic potential if it were at the service of the indigenous subjects it studies Of course, there are risks involved in a position like this. For example, it could degenerate into a position like Richard M. Begay's, who expects archaeologists and other Western intellectuals to help Amerindians to reconstruct their pasts, but without having the chance to disagree with whatever the indigenous subjects they are working for want them to say This is very far from the way Dussel envisions the role of the Western intellectual with regard to the subaltern, as we saw in the previous paragraph.
Begay's position is surprising because indigenous peoples have been able, for centuries, to live in, and to understand, two worlds, as Rabasa and others remind us see, for instance, the article by Jeffrey van Pelt, Michael S. Burney and Tom Bailor— and, therefore, they know that other human groups have beliefs that differ from theirs. I seriously doubt that a dogmatic affirmation of only one of the possible worldviews is the best way to advance the cause of indigenous peoples. The resentment of indigenous peoples with regard to archaeology is very well founded historically see, for a review of the horrors committed in the name of science, the article by Robert E.
Bieder and the book by David Hurst Thomas, among many other texts. Yet, this does not mean that archaeology as a profession with a long history of crimes and misdemeanors is the same as archaeology as a way of knowing. In the same fashion, and despite all their differences as far as disciplinary frameworks and protocols go, literary and cultural studies can be of some help to subalterns.
Archaeology can also teach us some lessons because, although it is a discipline that has been forced by law to respect the subaltern, it has started doing it effectively. Our discipline celebrated for decades a literary canon that exalted Western values and despised the marginal classes and ethnic groups of Latin America or represented them from an Occidental perspective, even in the case of the best intentioned of critics.
Today, the situation is different for Latin American literary and cultural studies: we can be proud to have witnessed the development of LASS with its proposals of voluntary solidarity with the subaltern, shown by several means, one of which is worth mentioning: to get out of the teaching machine and reach for the flesh and blood subaltern. There is still another way of reaching out for the subaltern and it is related to what I proposed above which is what is being enforced in other disciplinary fields, as we saw in the case of archaeology under NAGPRA : to bring subalterns, or their opinions, to academia, in order to get their input about our research agendas so that they can be a part of the process of shaping them.
This is not, as a colleague from the History department at the University of Florida told him, to make the indigenous subject a part of a circus or a freak show. The conference he proposed to his colleague from history was intended, then, to give indigenous subjects the opportunity to express themselves in their own words and languages. It was, too, a logical consequence of a subalternist agenda and a way to express solidarity with the descendents of the oppressed Amerindians he studies as a colonial expert In sum, LASS has been a very progressive attempt to open the fortress of the teaching machine to the subaltern.
It has had, also, a significant influence both in the US academy and in Latin America. It has, as Acosta has shown in his piece, the potential to help other disciplines Comparative Literature and English in the US academy to overcome some of their political and epistemological limitations. It shares, too, the ideals promoted by Mendieta as a spokesperson for Latin American post-occidentalism, and it contributes to what Mignolo, in his article published in this volume, calls an-other paradigm—that is, one that tries to understand subalternity and social injustice from the vantage point of the coloniality of power and the colonial difference.
That space gives us the chance to both revisit and vindicate those knowledges produced by subalterns that Western society has dismissed, ignored or destroyed. I am referring to what Michel Foucault called subjugated knowledges, those that have been de-authorized by the dominant epistemic rules and discourses for being local and partial. The subaltern as a place from which to think gives us the vantage point needed to criticize our present. As Linda Martin Alcoff's interpretation of the role of subjugated knowledges in Foucault's work suggests, the historical a priori, the social conjuncture, can only be subverted from the outside, from beyond what that historical conjuncture can comprehend or accept Alcoff Those knowledges deserve, then, a respect that it is based not only on ethical but also on epistemic grounds.
- English to European, Latin American and Neutral Spanish and/or vice-versa.!
- Regional Economic Outlook, May 2010: Western Hemisphere - Taking Advantage of Tailwinds (Spanish Edition);
- Menú de navegación?
Without a basic respect for the oppressed and their knowledges, it will be impossible to take their contribution to humankind seriously. This respect should be the point of departure of our research, understood less as a merely academic enterprise than as a de-totalizing practice of solidarity with the Other. I believe this line of thought is not alien to, or at least not incompatible with, some of the agendas proposed and embraced by diverse members of LASS.
In spite of all the praise the trajectory of LASS deserves, it is true that, as some of its members admit, there were internecine disputes and terrible struggles over power within the group. That self-perception—that is, of being the most revolutionary ones—together with a sense of belonging to an exclusive club, may have been some of the causes behind the numerous attacks the group suffered from Latin Americanists based in both Latin America and the US academy.
Then we started to catch on. Mignolo and Alberto Moreiras joined. And Duke comes into the picture with its great resources, and there is this big conference. Lots of money. Big names. Whereas our previous meetings had been very informal, low budget affairs. We would sit down for a weekend at someone's campus and talk like you and I are doing now. Nobody gave papers. Audiences were not invited to come or anything like that. So the Duke thing was much more dramatic and ambitious interview Because it was a political project.
It would have been perceived as yet another high-level academic project with little force behind it other than careerism. So you can say there was an element of subalternity operative in our own project. I am not trying to make any special claim to political correctness here.
We were all college-educated, middle-class, etcetera. But there is relative subalternity and relative resentment. Fuck them. We are going to do our thing, we are going to do it differently, collectively. Others, like Bosteels, who were not part of the collective, sees generational differences in the ranks of LASS , but they are, in his opinion, less important than the uneasy encounter that took place between the two strands of thought the Marxist and the Deconstructionist that predominated in the collective and the challenge to articulate them Basically, he asks himself how to achieve the fusion of theory and practice His take, like mine, is that we don't need to choose between the two forms of subalternism, but to seek a harmonic combination of both He is proposing, in sum, a theorization of the death of revolutionary politics of the past and a politicization of the deconstruction of the metaphysics of presence Instead of looking for that harmony, the members of LASS kept upping the ante in the debate regarding politics, trying to show who is the most revolutionary thinker.
Although it is a simplification to present the group as one comprised only of Marxists and Deconstructionists, it is undeniable that the tension between two theoretical tendencies lies behind the demise of the group. In other words, it could be said that it was their inability to bridge the theoretical gap, the theoretical differences between the main-albeit not the only-two strands that comprised LASS that led to its dissolution. All these internal criticisms show us a portrait of LASS as a project that included members with very different and divergent views, who provide us now with conflicting versions or accounts of the process that led to its demise, and that lay bare its several flaws and problems.
There must be life after the demise of the group. As Mosquera states in his contribution to this volume, following Beverley: one can still be loyal to a subalternist agenda—a more modest one—by keeping a constant watch on its genealogy, its methodologies and affiliations Some people would like to see a new edition of the group.
She also believes that if a new group is to emerge, it will be necessary both to write a new manifesto or founding statement and to find new leadership Her opinion is based on the assumption that without a structure there is no subaltern studies project Whether practitioners of the discipline decide to continue their efforts individually or whether they prefer to create a new group, the legacy of LASS cannot be ignored by those who believe their work is not just a mere intellectual exercise or a way to be protected from the ills of everyday real- life. Perhaps the time has come for them to take the banner from our hands and to find some way of changing the terms of the debate Whether one agrees or not with Beverley about the role his generation needs to play in the present I, for one, wish they would stay around and keep contributing to the field's theoretical debates , it is also true that the legacy of LASS needs to be re-actualized by younger scholars.
And when I say younger, I really mean it: I am referring to young assistant professors and graduate students. This would bring fresh air to the space opened by the group. This would also be a celebration of, or a homage to, not only LASS, but also to the Latin American post-occidentalist tradition.
This note celebrates its achievement and the mutable vitality of subaltern studies; it is post- obituary, not an obituary. We are dead. Long live subaltern studies in the Americas! I am one of those who are willing to help contribute to the after-life of the spirit, or if you prefer, of the inspiration that brought LASS into being. This special issue is an attempt to discuss the history, the multiple agendas, the limitations and the various legacies of the group. Hopefully, more venues will offer their pages to a renewed and refreshing debate about this seminal group and the theories that came from Latin America in the sixties.
I, too, sometimes feel that the ending of papers or introductions should take the form of a rather tall order. Otherwise, why bother? Long live critical thinking that seeks the liberation of the poor and the oppressed. And this has to do with a recognition of the limits of critical thinking and the limits of intellectuals. Well, I beg to differ: the domination exerted by central Nation- States on the peripheral ones has very little to do with identity and much more with the power relations that develop between states as a consequence of a history of colonialism and neocolonialism.
Let us hope that, if this is true, Carr tells the public where this group operates, what kind of work it publishes and who are its members. Enrique Dussel's Philosophy of Liberation. Begay, Richard M. Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Nina Swidler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and Alan S. Durham and London: Duke UP, Against Literature. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, Arguments in Cultural Theory.
Durham: Duke UP, Bieder, Robert E. Devon A. Lincoln and London: U of Nebraska P, Carr, Robert. Carter, Cecile Elkins. Chakrabarty, Dipesh. Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton UP, Cypress, Billy L. Dussel, Enrique. Madrid: Trotta, Echo-Hawk, Roger C. Ferguson, T. Feyerabend, Paul. London: Verso, . Foucault, Michel. Guha, Ranajit. Hurst Thomas, David. New York: Basic Books, Latin American Subaltern Studies Group.
Mallon, Florencia. Berkeley: U of California P, Mignolo, Walter. Coloniality, Subaltern Knowl- edges and Border Thinking. New Jersey: Princeton UP, Literacy, Territoriality and Coloni- zation. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, Enrique Dussel's Phi- losophy of Liberation. Moreiras, Alberto. Burney and Tom Bailor. Petras, James. Legacies of Pain, Visions of Promise. Keith James. Stanford: Stanford UP, Stern, Steve. Peru's Indian peoples and the challenge of Spanish conquest: Hua- manga to Madison, Wis.
Trope, Jack F. Verdesio, Gustavo. Views from South 2. Indigenous Archaeology.
Stemm_es a stemming class for spanish · GitHub
American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Williams, Gareth. The Other Side of the Popular. Neoliberalism and Subalternity in Latin America. Zimmermann, Larry J. Lincoln and Lon- don: U of Nebraska P, Perhaps the impetus behind this set of questions is to make us ponder the commonalities of our efforts as Latin Americanists and to make us realize that, in fact, we belong to one and the same field and share the same genealogies. The sec- ond group aims at establishing the particularities of the relationship between the South Asian Subaltern Studies Collective and LASS, and points in the direction of a desencuentro between the two groups.
The third refers to the organizational structure of LASS, its advantages and disadvan- tages, and wonders if it would have been better to choose a different for- mat—an open rather than a closed structure, a movement rather than a group. And finally, the fourth set asks for the conditions of possibility of continuing the subaltern studies discussion by other means, with other peo- ple, and under a different format.
Naturally, engaging in this dialogue implies, were we to comply with the request of the editor, to discuss the errors committed, speak about the possibilities overlooked, and re-examine the limitations of our collective practice. The nature of LASS and the type of work it did is gathered in the volumes we published. In this piece I am interested not only in revis- iting the proposal of subalternism as an alternative and counterhegemonic epistemology that for me marked the continuity of the legacy of Marxism by other means, but also in presenting a retrospective situational analysis of the juncture that brought us together, and in reconsidering some of the real structural issues that caused the final demise of the group under that light.
Given the available choices within the field at the time—a Marxism whose limits were already a hindrance in thinking about the social processes inflected by high modernity, and the most festive, triumphant, and market oriented current of Cultural Studies, heavily dependent on deconstruc- tion—I, together with the historical founders of the group, chose the path of Subaltern Studies. Our recalcitrant faith in the social agency of the poor, in the belief that they were endowed with consciousness and a political will that could serve as a foundation for theory, and the affinity defined as a political sensibility between the members of the collective was our investment, a way of micro-managing the transition from an engaged past to a demobilized present and an uncertain future.
This is our first legacy to the field. Guha was our mediator and compass during those disorienting days. There was no Manichean bent implicit in this conception, no ethical distinction between good and evil, not even the idea of victims and oppressors. There was, on the contrary, the necessity of revising, or rather, constructing, a theory of resistance grounded on the practices, conscious- ness, and will of the poor. Where had we gone wrong in our understanding of the agent of change? We were Marxist, we had read our Marxism, we were aware of the polemics within Marxism.
This knowledge notwithstanding, we could not let go of the desire to construct a critical approach to culture from the viewpoint of the subaltern and in solidarity with them. And agency was the magic word or formula we seemed to encounter in the South Asian collective use of the term subaltern. Agency plus the term subaltern itself seemed to give meaning to cultural criticism and value to a field left empty by the evacuation of Marxist cate- gories.
In the work of the South Asian collective we found the vehicle to perpetuate what could be rescued of a depleted epistemology, and we used Subaltern Studies to make a statement: we used it as a pretext to put forth yet another agenda of field work in the transition from a bi- to a unipolar world system. We were conver- sant with this type of work. The fact that we are always called to make the distinction between Subaltern and Cultural Studies, more than between Subaltern and Postcolonial Studies is proof that the difference between us could not be so easily discerned.
This was a sign not only of the contem- poraneity of our scholarship but also of the sharing of some presuppositions and concerns. After all, we are in the same field, we belong to the same pro- fessional group, and yes, we share our genealogies. All of us, fin de siglo cultural workers in the field of Latin American studies, were of one and the same generation—ten years of difference between us, give or take. As stu- dents, most of us were brought up under the aegis of Marxism, whether of the orthodox or revisionist kind, which was the dominant paradigm during our formative years.
Most of us, at least in our early youth, were politically engaged, some militants in social movements, most of us became public intellectuals who participated in public debates in our respective societies, marched against the war in Vietnam in the U. We were engaged intellectuals, people who took a stand, wrote for the newspapers, and read the same books. Also, we were influenced by the Frankfurt and Birmingham Schools that gained so much notoriety in the works of Cultural Studies—for all of us, ex- or post- Marxists, cultural analysts had been the seedbeds of large polemics on the constitution and role of culture with regards to society, class, and party construction, and yes, important elements in the discussion of ideology and class struggle.
Who is not going to remember the polemic between party intellectuals like George Lukacs and Bertolt Brecht? Who was not learned in the Benjaminian warnings of art in the age of mechanical reproduction and the art of story telling? Who did not know the polemic on class undertaken by Eric Hobsbawm, E. Thompson, and Raymond Williams? In fact, Guha belongs to that generation of historians who, so the oral history goes, did not give a damn about his or her work.
All those bibliographies were recognized by all of us, those bibliographies were our common ground, our true home base. The difference between us at that moment, the difference that was being emphasized and paraded, was our place of enunciation. Where we lived became a determining factor at the juncture of globalization. This was nothing new because this was also true at the time of the revolution. However, in my view, our posture before the transition, what each of us chose to emphasize, distinguished the two approaches to the field.
The transition from liberalism to neo-liberalism was the real part- ing of the waters. To the sorrow of those who leave is opposed the emptiness to be inhabited by the acts and words of those who come in my translation. Some of these scholars repre- sented the cutting edge of the field, and if they were not the vanguard they were the postmodern avant-garde. All these works responded to the needs of peripheral societies as they adjusted them- selves to the new logic of high modernity or postmodernity.
Looking at the body of work from this perspective, I can understand the reluctance on the part of Latin American scholars to be grouped under the festive rubric of Cultural Studies—a current of thought they associated with the North American academy. These Latin American scholars based in Latin America were serious analysts of the transition to the neo- and the post-. They proposed new and alternative paths for the field of Latin American Studies, reflected on the disciplines that had formed the identities of the former nation-states, iden- tified the new profiles of fragmented, shattered, and dispersed social sub- jects and social movements locally, and discussed the inadequacies of the liberal paradigms circulating in mimicry of civil society.
In this respect our interests converged. They spoke about modernity, modernizing, and mod- ernization: we spoke of Western Reason and the philosophies of the Enlightenment. And in their cultural analysis they, like us, made a move to include all forms of culture—not only high but also pop, mass, industrial, and electronic cultures. These themes were also present in the discussion forums established by the national and international commissions on truth and reconciliation.
These forums fostered the production of testimonials and changed the notion of historiography, bringing the disciplines of his- tory, anthropology, and sociology closer to the spirit of Subaltern Studies. In these efforts, their work and ours dovetailed. In those days, LASS scholars were more invested in revising and insisting on the left than in debating the aporias of liberalism. We were more interested in finding out what had gone wrong—the future possibili- ties for the left, and the nature of radicalism—than in civil society, the new social movements, or the debates on pluralism and democracy.
The bottom line was that, at that moment, we saw ourselves as radical scholars and thought Cultural Studies scholars were liberal social democrats. Yet, back then, all of us were looking for new vocabularies for a sit- uational analysis of culture, an analysis that described a saturated public sphere in which the new forms of opposition had to be re-imagined. It was clear that the opposition had taken new, unedited forms, some of which were going to derive from the performative, the queer, and beyond.
If I am going to pinpoint our intervention in the field, it is its insistence upon the power of negative dialectics and radicalism—not so much governability as ungovernability. In the notion of subalternity, I believe we come closer to the gatherers of testimonials.
I am thinking in particular of the works under- taken in Colombia, Jamaica, El Salvador, and Guatemala by historians, journalists, and all kinds of social agencies. Their voices consti- tute what Nancy Fraser calls the subaltern counterpublics. Living in the hegemonic nation, fully inserted within high modernity, we took electronic and mass culture for granted and insisted upon dwelling in the residual memory of the left.
This was one of our major concerns and part of our legacy. Living in the metropolis, is it really that hard to under- stand that gesture? The remnants, the leftovers and shreds of the big defeat were more attractive to us. I personally was much less interested in the cultures of con- sumption than in the great duelo. We were aferrados, we clung to the mem- ories of the past, hopes and memories that were also part of the transition, and if being obstinate is just another name for the virtue of persistence and resiliency then our legacy to the field is precisely that: we were the empeci- nados.
For that reason alone South Asian Subalternism was a proper vehicle for us. I am sure they went through the same circle of hope and defeat, of uncritical allegiance and critical distance, of the direct experience of the ris- ing hopes for a better future for the poor and the betrayal of corrupt leaders, hardened dogmas, and local cultural determinations. They had a wealth of knowledge concerning their own local experience that they wanted to revise, unhinge, and untangle.
They too were discontented with the liberal national leadership, the ideas of modernization and the development— western style—that the comprador bourgeoisie had displayed for purchase. We reached the same point in several different parts of the world at differ- ent historical junctures and, to our credit, we recognized our affinities. The difference between localities—who was where when—was also a factor in the constitution of that South Asian Subaltern Studies collective.
The relation between Subaltern and Postcolonial Studies was much more organic and fluid at the very beginning. In my view of things, these two approaches were very compatible—the South Asian Subalternists even called themselves postcolonial and as postcolonial scholars they circulated within the First World academies. In the Latin American version of Post- colonial Studies, there was an explicit validation of ancient Amerindian cultures, a desire to unearth their old epistemological ways of organizing the universe and a desire to validate them.
There was also a need to link old indigenous epistemologies to new indigenous struggles and this demanded a systemic analysis of capitalism. That con- stituted a divide among them. For those interested in ancient indigenous cultures, the epistemes provided therein constituted an alternative to Western reason and an appropriate method for thinking subaltern studies.
For given that the great genealogies and the great narratives have been written from above, thinking from below is one of the most difficult endeavors, and therefore an intellectual chal- lenge to deconstruction. The crucial question was the necessity of understanding globaliza- tion.
Was globalization the name for the last readjustment of capitalism? If so, the geopolitics of geoculture brought us together because we could eas- ily plug in familiar notions that had formerly circulated under the Leninist rubric of imperialism and were given a new twist in the neo-version of Empire. In all cases, we were talking about capitalism as a world system, a familiar frame of reference. But what were the repercussions and rearrangements that globalization brought to knowledge production?
For better or for worse, some of us tied the discussion of globalization to University politics and the discussion of Area Studies. Actually, we took it upon ourselves to discern the relation- ships between the local and the global. Here the discussion of localization and the home base of intellectuals held its sway. The question was—and still is—who knows what best? Which necessities does the new knowledge address?
Who does knowledge help and whom does it wreck? Knowledge became a question of hegemony and power. Therefore it became imperative to recognize not only that there was knowledge produced in the periphery but also that this knowledge was worth studying, that it was important locally and globally, and that it ultimately crossed Area Studies. Granted, the struggle over Area Studies was a localized struggle but it was neverthe- less a struggle to set the tendency that would later spread out throughout the world. We saw ourselves as the periphery of the center whereas our colleagues in Latin America were the center of the periphery.
However, these positionalities have never been acknowl- edged. More often than not, there is a conflation of locality and positional- ity and all of us are lumped together within dominance—cosas de gringos. Ours was a call for a dialogue among and between minority subaltern intel- lectuals that never came to fruition.
This can be part of the agenda for the new project, and the idea our legacy to the field. In this new phase of geopolitics and geoculture, there is, once again, the possibility of going back to revise the common ground of Cultural, Postcolonial, and Subaltern Studies, and to understand how the work of social scientists and cultural critics converge in the use of bibliographies and approaches. This social and cultural confluence is found in other studies that utilize the notion of sub- altern counter spheres, particularly in the new energy of NGO sponsored intellectual work that relies on the archives of the living, productive agents and brings their voices to bear on public discussion.
In these studies we find the convergence of Cultural, Subaltern, and Postcolonial Studies approaches, new ways that social and cultural analysts reinsert themselves within the social fabric and feed the discussions of the public sphere. Through these works subalterns constitute themselves as dialoguing part- ners and active agents within contemporary society.
The consciousness of that break generated the new approaches to the field. We felt the need to revisit the old sites and to rework the production of knowledge, the workings of culture, and the agency of people. To paraphrase him, how must we understand the world now that we are neither apocalyptic nor integrated? It was his work that we read and discussed and it was him that we wanted to meet and invite to one of our gatherings.
Patricia Seed organized a special meeting with him at Rice for us. But in that article he also explained that the genesis of their project was grounded in the South Asian experience and that they had never entertained aspirations to univer- sality; they did not count on any readership abroad. They were local intel- lectuals dedicated to the study of their local community, their region, South Asia.
Frankly speaking, we do not know much about theirs either. These three pieces remind me of our own analysis of modernism and modernization. I heard there had been two other meetings with them, one in Chicago, organized by Chakravarty, and one in Mexico, organized by Saraub Dube, to which only a couple of us were invited. By the times these events took place, LASS was already in total disarray.
Overall, in their individual relationships with us, the members of the South Asian collective were courteous and deferential but never to my knowledge intellectually engaging—the exception is Dube, who works in Mexico. At Duke they remained mostly to themselves because they were conscious that they were not part of our field discussion but, in private, I know that they thoroughly enjoyed the conference and considered it of high caliber. Thinking seriously about their indifference to our work, I can only interpret it in light of the sharp division between fields and Area Studies— South Asia, Latin America, etc.
This division fosters a tradition of igno- rance amongst the regions of the world and favors the mediation of knowl- edge via Europe and Western thought. This division is also part and parcel of the coloniality of power and part of our discussion of Area Studies. While in general the division between rigidly classified disciplines prohib- its interdisciplinary dialogue, the division between the social and human sciences is especially marked.
Historians and literary specialists hardly ever cross-reference each other. Granted, for all appearances, the South Asian collective had nothing, or very little, in the way of a dialogue with us. Hence we chose to relate to each other through the European mediation of Antonio Gramsci. Perhaps the moment was unpropitious. Perhaps when we came onto the scene, their col- lective work had lost its cohesion and political impetus and the pervading cynicism of the era had dimmed its light.
Perhaps the transition also intro- duced an element of distrust that disconcerted them as much as it did us. Perhaps all of us, the most radical flank of the international intelligentsia, were turning into social democrats. Perhaps we were losing our grip and becoming openly conservative.
Generation X Remixed
Who knows! But in their desconocimiento or disavowal of us, I see a negation of themselves and of their own excel- lence and importance. They turned their faces away from the image we pro- vided for them in the mirror of Latin American Subaltern Studies. Had we all recognized the productivity of a dialogue amongst our- selves, we could have moved from a national and regional form of local- ization to a continental and even global peripheral, one from below. To my knowledge, only Dabashi and Spivak recognized this angle.
At Columbia University Guha said he had transcended subalternism and implied that we should do likewise. To settle his scores with Marx, Guha had turned to Hegel and high Indian culture, to the literature of the elite. It was in response do this new turn that Dabashi ironically drew the dividing line by stating, in a paraphrase of Marx, that he was not a subalternist. This is then a good vantage point from which to consider the future agenda of subalter- nism. The Organizational Structure of the Group Considering the historical juncture of our coming together, the col- lapse of LASS and I almost dare to say of the South Asian collective as well is part of the collapse of the left and its forms of organization.
During our formative years we organized study groups to instruct ourselves and read the material not included in the curricula. Drawing on this model, we came together as a collective and ignored that collective formats were a thing of the past. The idea itself was vitiated and contaminated on all flanks due to the similitude collectivities held with models pertaining to political parties and organizations on the one hand, and the corporate world on the other.
That was strike one against us. Strike two was the waning interest in the poor. Latin America is one of those areas Arrigui calls redundant or obsolete. If that was so, who was going to be interested in the Latin American poor? We had to think hard and fast about that question. The interest in the Gulbenkian Commission Report regarding social sciences and the book on the invention of the Latin American field by Mark T. Berger is related to this awareness. We were not bureaucrats.
We did not want to invest time in organizing the group. We wanted the group to exist de facto, spontaneously. We came together at the annual conference and at the annual conference we decided who was to plan the next one. Had we made a real and genuine effort, we could have worked out bylaws, thought about membership, orga- nized research agendas, and founded a journal.
We did none of that. There were voices proposing a more coherent plan of action as there was sometimes assiduous communication between us via email, but nothing came of it. It still is. When subalterns are transformed into theoretical categories, they are given the status of active agents in the production of knowledge. The South Asian collective, and Guha in particular, makes them absolutely pivotal to the structure of imperial historiography and hence of politics. When he points out the slippery character of subalternity he is referring to the anxi- eties produced in the minds of hegemonic subjects and how it affects their writing and knowledge production.
The mere existence of subalterns con- stituted an interruptus that made the entire history of colonialism a failed enterprise in spite of the high rates of capital accumulation. Industrial and electronic cultures came to bear on this great leap forward of North American universities. Looking at it from this per- spective, the project is even more attractive today. I think that had we worked out a solid organizational structure, and had we had a clear research agenda, that our project could have survived.
In retrospect, there were several ways of constructing affinities in our group. There were the young and the old; those established and those beginning; the European, the Africans, and the Latin Americans, men and women, blacks and non-blacks, gay, straight, and bisexual, but all those signs and discourses were conveniently disregarded. Differences were in fact never discussed. We ignored the fact that rank and hierarchy of all kinds are part of social relations and that the distinction between elite and subaltern is duplicated in all social structures.
Ours was no exception. The effect of all this unfinished business was a climate of distrust and this distrust translated into a form of disrespect amongst the members. This is, I dare say, a very masculine way of approaching group dynamics but what else is new? Mas- culine protocols were coming back into fashion. Our differences, our het- erogeneity, could have been a source of wealth, instead they became a hindrance.
Bueno, si usted gusta puedo llevarla yo mismo. Me gustan los empleados eficientes. Muchas gracias. No le saco. Hey, hey, tranquilo, tranquilo. Es un poquito. Se la voy a buscar. Bueno, es lo mismo. Siempre lo mismo. Es una… Es una medallita, muy bien. No, vos dijiste prendedor, yo dije medalla, Cato. Yo… Tome, Roberto, tome. Dale, fuerza, fuerza.
Muy bien. Le va a caer mal. Vamos nosotros. Ya venimos, Roberto. Tranquilo, eh. Son recuerdos privados de la familia. Le ofrezco una disculpa. Le pido por favor que no toque ni haga comentario alguno sobre las cosas de esta casa, ni de esta familia. Metiche: someone who goes around looking into things, nosy No, mi amor, no soy metiche. Ella con una sonrisa muy bonita, peculiar. No encuentro el cargador del celular. Por si refresca. Por si llueve. Es tranquilo para leer.
Ahora no puedo leer de otra manera. Quiero que me cuentes todo sobre tus vacaciones, te vi en el "Fab and chic". Bueno, no importa. Hola, chica delivery. Va a empezar a ir al Blake. Hola… Permiso, eh. No necesito tu ayuda. Gracias, eh. Trabaja en la pista. Busca asistente de pista.
Porque hay que saber patinar bien. Bye, chico fresa. No entran. Bueno, no te enojes, Lila.
Ah, hola. No, yo no. A veces llega tarde. Chau, Lila. No, segunda. Tengo una crema que creo que te va a hacer genial. Pero, estoy bien. Claro, el patinaje urbano es simplemente un medio de transporte. O mejor dicho, un ecotransporte. Todo vale. Yo soy Luna. No, no, amigas, no. La verdad es que me conviene llevarme bien con ella ya que vamos a ir a la misma escuela.
Buena onda: awesome Segunda coincidencia. O sea, es la reina de la pista. La verdad es que me encanta. Quiero empezar a trabajar como asistente de pista. Es justo lo que necesito. Puedo hacerla si quieren ahorita. Gracias, Nico. Chau, Nina. Hola, amigos. Nos encanta su look. Lo lamento, amiga. Caer es la mejor forma de aprender. Lo dudo. Se quiere postular para ser la nueva asistente de pista. Es una buena noticia. Parece que no le cuesta mucho aprender. Necesito que reveamos mi agenda. Con que los tengas vigilados alcanza. Gracias, Nina. Me da un poco de miedo. Porque la lista es larga.
Ellos, no. No, no te preocupes. Soy adoptada, pero estoy bien con eso. La verdad que ellos son los mejores padres del mundo mundial. Ellos me dan mucho amor y nunca me ha faltado nada. Oye, oye, hablando ya de lo anterior, espero no volverme a caer esta vez. No, aunque fue un poco gracioso. Te vio todo el Jam and Roller. Se llama "Fab and chic". Tranquila, no es con vos. Suben todo lo que pasa en la pista. No, no tengas miedo. Sos una chica muy valiente. Siempre hay que volver a intentarlo. Luna… Nico. Tamara te quiere conocer. Vamos que te la presento.
Bye, Nina. Tamara, ella es Luna. Bueno, bienvenida. Yo soy Tamara, la encargada del Jam and Roller. Mucho gusto, soy Luna Valente. Me dijo Nico que te interesa ser asistente de pista. Quedate tranquila, no es nada que un buen patinador no pueda resolver. Una buena asistente de pista tiene que poder resolver distintos grados de dificultad, y usar unos patines que no sean los tuyos, es justamente una dificultad.
Quedate tranquila, estoy segura de que vas a pasar la prueba. Si le ajustamos la rueda, Luna se va a trabar y va a terminar en el suelo. De nada. Ah, medallita. No quiere. No quiere agua. No puedo seguir con esta… coughing Tos. Con esta culpa. No es culpa. Es tos, Roberto. Ella nunca va a saber su verdadera historia. Roberto, Roberto, bueno, bueno… Pero, fue necesario. Bueno, le estoy poniendo una buena voluntad a todo esto yo.
Esa mujer se llama… Sharon Benson. Sharon Benson. Yo creo que no. Te va a salir bien. Tranquilas, chicas. Ya va a llegar. Vos preparate para grabar. Chicos, por favor. Un minuto, liberamos la pista. Papelones hace. Hello, you are new here, right? This is the first time I see you here on the skating rink. Yes, it is the first time that I am on the skating rink. But know what? I feel as if I had been here before. Here on the skating rink? Yes, ignore me. I was thinking about a dream… Sorry. Can I skate? Yes, you may.
But for that, you need a ticket. Do you have a ticket? Today is your lucky day. Look at all of these I have here. Thank you! I am Luna. I am Nico. Nice to meet you. I am one of the staff and I am in charge of the skating rink. So, you can let me know of anything that you might need. Thank you. Have fun.
Ah, sorry! What are you doing here?
This is my skating rink, delivery chick. Are you following me? To tell you the truth, I came all the way from Mexico and on my skates just to see if I found a preppy guy. You know? You know what? On a holiday or what? Look, her godmother hired my parents so they work at the Buenos Aires mansion.
And for just my luck, now I have to attend to the same school she goes to. Para mi suerte: ironic expression: just my luck Uh… So I am surprised. We will attend to the same school, to Blake. Ah… Those are good news. But, just my luck, I will be one grade lower you two are on. Who cares about the others if you already know the King of the skating rink? And what are we cheering for? Because that Little girl will not be around me not another minute.
Little Luna will go back to her sunny Cancun in less than a month. I thought she was staying for a longer period of time. That is a metaphor, just a way of saying it, do you get my point? How can you be so sure about it? Because I will make her life a nightmare. Well, we actually are about to make her life just a bit more complicated, because you two will help me out doing so. Chin, chin [swish, swish]. Chin, chin: celebratory expressio Hi.
Hello, Pedro. How about those vacations? How did you do? We did windsurf, skatesurf, body board. Waveboard, waveskate, wavesurf… Anything else? Hey, hey hey! And how about yourself? Everything Ok here? Everything good, yeah. A bit complex to be honest. The year starts and we have no skating rink assistant. When classes start we will not be sufficient for them all, so if you knew of anybody… Dar abasto: to have enough of something Her! Because I would like to put my name on there. Yes, me too. Excuse me… Thank you. Yes, indeed.
Before Ramiro does. Were you looking for me? Wow… You still look as cherishable. I am also happy seeing you. Is it obvious? And when are you posting it? Right now I need to make an order. Well, OK. Let me first finish this and then I open the registration for the Open Music event. Well, well, look. It would be better we posted it. Do it, do it, do it… No, no, no, ladies. The tablet no, no, please, leave it. I have already told you to not! What did you do? We wanted to help you. And what do you need? You to get the hell out of here. See you around. We almost did no shopping.
Ay, seriously? My godmother was so tired. Oh no. What a pity. You kept in your mind your best girly Friends, right? What did you bring to us? But I thought of you all the time. Ay, you are always one of a kind. He will soon call ya. How about if you call him? No, Delfi, you did not understand anything. He told me he will call me when he gets there. Or perhaps has gotten delayed by the free shop buying you a perfume.
Why wait? He for a reason is your boyfriend, right?
Did you like it? Excuse me. You sound tired. Have you just arrived? Yeah, I just got home. What happened? Air transit was heavy. Oh, sweetheart. And now, what plans do you have? I am tired. Call you later, Okay? I want to see you, baby. Send you a kiss. Call you later. Only a kiss? Huh oh no, no. Another and another and another one… Goodbye. What, are you scared of falling? Not at all. You used this in Cancun, right? Here the same if you have no experience.
Flares, screaming, and crying.. Hi… Hello. Roberto… Oh, again with the story? She… coughing She asked me to look for the girl. The fire, the smoke. I thought it already was too late, but still… Then I saw her. The girl was there. It will be an honor to have you in the Benson Mansion I will be waiting.
Your drink. Thank you Amanda. Scrambled cucumbers with egg-white. Did you call me Madame? I will be expecting a quite important person who will come to have lunch. I need you taking charge of everything, so everything is perfect. Later on I will let you have the details. As you wish. Do you need anything else? I will go upstairs and rest at my bedroom. No answer. Well, it probably ran-out of battery, darling. Yes, she did. Ok, Ok. Calm down, sweetheart. Look, you already know how Luna is. When she skates, time flies. We never know where she is at or when she returns. And her parents?
They are business people, they are always traveling. She luckily has Mrs. Sharon next to her, who is her godmother, but like a mother to her. I truly think it must be tough for her. Poor Mrs. I mean to say, because that girl is a real case. A lot of patience required. Thank you, Amanda. How about if you dial again? She probably picks-up the phone now. What happened delivery chick? Are you afraid of falling? If you want I can be of help. I forgot I was talking to a Pro. I want to see you doing free style. Free style? When that moment comes, I will have not a problem helping you out.
Did you get hurt? No, it was nothing. It was an incredible landing. Well, you won. I rather prefer falling a thousand times instead of having you as a tutor. Not a thousand, a million times. I still would rather prefer to remain down on the ground. Guys… We are on time. The skating rink is about to get closed. Ay, what time is it? It surely is late, I got to go.
Are you afraid of trying it again? No vegetables with leaves, neither hot ingredients nor dressings. What do you think? What did you say? Sweetheart… Everything is fine, everything is fine. We had fun, right? Your return to the skating rinks. Ay, I love that. But with the King of the skating rink. Start thinking about what you will be wearing.
Ay, right. See you tomorrow girls. Unusual, you in the hurry and bouncing with people, right? It will not happen again. Still, remember that you cannot go in through the front door, Ok? You need to use the other one. Right, Ok. You will slowly learn things around. Luna, are you alright? Where were you? We were really worried about you. I told mom I was going out for some time. And, sweetheart, try not using the front door. We need to go in through the other door, Ok? And tell me.
Why do we have a phone? So you call us explaining a reason. It could also happen to you two. Luna, what are you thinking, sweetheart? You are not paying attention. We need you to focus, Ok? Anything else? Next time you go out, I need you to tell me where you are going, and I will go pick you up. But, dad, no… No, no but dad. Please, Go wash your hands now because we are about to have dinner; and… swallows we were really concerned, Luna. Tamara will kill me when I tell her.
But shaking it as a blender you will not make it function. Give me a hand, later on I will help you out. I accept your help. Te tomo la palabra: I accept your help You have no idea of how tired I am. I did not take a break for a bit. And still the season has not started. Cambias el chip: Talk about something else What band, Pedro?
We have no guitar player. Well, it will be about searching for one. I have already called done, and will not be available. And then we try again. Everything Nico? Well, I need to make this Tablet work.
Thoughts from NFL week 1
There it is. All good? I fixed it. You are a genius! Enrollment for the first Open Music of the year has officially been posted. Awesome, brother. My dear friend. Enrolling first to the Open Music. But we go first, so make a line. Calm down, Wonder Twins. Slow the motion to those decibels. Who said I want to enroll to the Open? Then If not, what were you going you ask for?
The milkshake will be served some other day, we are closing now. I have already posted the Open Music and may post your names anytime you want. From your mobile phones. Not from the tablet. This is so not possible. Everything good? I am ahead of you for fifteen seconds and eight decimals. The exact time it took me in writing my full name.
I have the initiation of the first Open Music of the season. Please applaud! Come on! I want you there, applauding This is my new number. Are you there? Hello, friend. How are you? Good, well. Well, so so. I also miss you. But, how was your flight? The flight, Ok. The landing was sort of complicated, especially on the ground. What I like is speed. Skating on the skating rink is another thing, eh? What skating rink are you talking about? Well, the one in my dream. Of course, where elephants skate.
And me too. Listen, I was this close in sending the song because I have already perfected it. And related to the skating rink, forget about it, it mostly is about practice. But what I know for sure is that I fell badly, eh? What matters is trying it. Besides, keep it up! I want to see that smile! General is coming. What are you doing? I was making a phone call. I was cleaning it. And to smile, OK? Can you please take breakfast to my bedroom? I will tell Amanda to bring it to you.
What would you like getting for breakfast? A cold cappuccino with cream and y hazelnuts. No, with no cream, but with vanilla. Alright… Or, could it be a latte tea… Do you know how to make a hot chocolate? Ay, I love the way you talk, Moni. Then, make it a latte tea and two chocolate muffins. I meant to say, dulce de leche. Hello, Lunita. How are you doing in your new life? Eh… Good. I think it will be really super-pretty living here.
Chido: Something really pretty or good Yes. I saw you leaving this place with your skates yesterday. Where did you go to? Yes, I took a walk for a while. Now, I even want to go out skating and it all. We were worried yesterday. She by herself in a new city… Mom, we have talked about it, and I also apologized.
It is a large city. Stop, stop. Drink a latte tea with me. Moni, make it two latte teas and we will drink them with Lunita in my bedroom. Well, next time. Anything you need, I will be in my bedroom. You two might get along. You are welcome, madam. Good morning, Mrs. Fire him. To fire him? It is not the first time he fails to work. I do not tolerate incompetent employees.
Fire him and hire someone else. As you wish, excuse me. And find a car so we can go out and do the diligences that I need to do today. Well, if you would like, I can take you myself. I like reliable employees. I hope you keep it that way. Thank you very much.
Roberto, how are you friend? What do you have there? What do you have in your ha…? Well, how are you? Your feet? The bed, you have it a mess, so we are going to clean your bed. We are going to make this suitable here Hey, hey, relax, relax. It is a Little. Let me look for it. Tino, how is Roberto doing?
Spanish Fiction in the Digital Age
Let me make your bed… That a cough, eh. Tino, and this? Look, someone might have lost it, right? What is it? To me, that is a medal, as the ones that high-class madams use. No, no, you are wrong, because Roberto is not a high-class madam. What matters is if it is of any value.
To me, it looks like gold. The little medal… struggling The small medal of the girl… Again with the story. Always the same. Roberto, Roberto… The Little medal of the girl… Caughing will get worse, remain calm. No, no, stop, stop. I think you want the small medal, right? It is a… it is a small medal, very well. No, you said a pin, I said a small medal, Cato. Or did you say…? I… Take this, Roberto, take it. Come on, keep it up, keep it up.
Come on. Stretch, Stretch. Very well! Very well. Very good, Roberto. Ok, now we are leaving, eh? Keep the… You know? I would take a cup of coffee. Do you want a cup of coffee, Roberto? It will not do good to him. We have come, Roberto, Relax, eh. Miguel, What are you doing with that? Excuse me, madam Sharon, estaba solamente viendo la foto. Those are private memories of the family. It was not my intention.
You are right, Mrs. What happened Miguel? Well, nothing, I remained staring at a photograph and Mrs. Well, of course she would get mad. Why are you there as a sneaky yank? Metiche: someone who goes around looking into things, nosy No, sweetheart, I am not a sneaky yank. One which is by the chimeny of a Young couple.
Her with a beautiful smile, peculiar. Yes, I know which one you are talking about. She was Mrs. She died in an accident. It happened several years ago. But, Mrs. If I take you to the Roller you send a message so your dad goes and pick you up there, ok? Mom, mom… What? It has to be there, I returned it to you, look. No, your father does not have the neck pad neither has the anti-plate toothpaste pro-enamel that you use, Nina.
And this sweater?