Ernesto Palacio, one of the best examples of historical revisionism.
Al "professional historian" Luis Alberto Romero
of "an amateur writer, Oscar Juan Carlos Denovi Secretary General of the National Institute of Historical Research Juan Manuel de Rosas *
of "an amateur writer, Oscar Juan Carlos Denovi Secretary General of the National Institute of Historical Research Juan Manuel de Rosas *
* Dr. Oscar JC Response to the article of Prof. Denovi Luis Alberto Romero published in The Nation on November 18 2010.
historians call supporters to the official story began their admonitions with a subtly derogatory language, in which condition the reader is not informed enough. In this case, once again, it says in the article "Turning defeat into victory," the newspaper La Nación of the Nov. 18 edition: "... Roses troops tried in vain to block access to the British fleet by this river. "It must be said, Mr. Luis Alberto Romero, because he is the author, the Argentine troops, and it was unnecessarily as we shall see later. Next, it continues its onslaught dismissive, calling to sustain those positions opposed to the liberal version and sometimes false or mutilated, "writers," who assume the task of "breaking the patch and arouse feelings of nationalism and imagined deeply ingrained in our society. "Thanks, we knew, but also flatters us.
Next, it denies that the official story was hidden the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado. Say about it, first, that when I talk about it, it was called combat, reducing their importance in that way, because between two concepts, half a difference significant scale. For the elements committed by both sides, even with the significant reduction technique provided by the Argentines, it was a real battle who speaks own casualties, the damage to Anglo-French fleet that had to stay 40 days Obligado repairing damages, and the military view of the time, including the General San Martín.
Undoubtedly, we must refer to past times of immediate and mediate, about hiding in Argentina's history of this event. In the nineteenth century writings, was not at all, but then in the twentieth century, almost disappeared from the books, especially those of primary school text - mention of the events - and for secondary education. I can attest to this, because I completed my primary and secondary education between 1945 and 1960. One of the authors mentioned by Romero, as proof that the Vuelta de Obligado was cited in the books of the past, José Luis Busa, author ranged from his liberal position, after being informed by revisionist writings published since 1939 by the Institute Historical Research Juan Manuel de Rosas, and other like-minded entities, settled in Santa Fe But Busaniche publications met late in the sixties. The other author mentioned, was Ernesto Palacio, the same can be said of him, since their work was also published and disseminated throughout the sixties. As Ferns and Lynch, its spread was back yet. So that generations of parents outside the reading of history, even in significant proportion gravitates, the history taught in primary and secondary education. Testimony of this is the incredible ignorance of our youth in many aspects, which highlights the Argentine past ..
Later, back on the outcome of the race at that place to be, to remember that it was a defeat. But it happens that the action to which it relates and we now refer, was the first of others that followed the war were the Paraná, undeclared war - by the controllers - but war ends, months later, in the Narrows Quebracho (04/06/1846) with a win partial victory, but victory in the end, because in that battle, another one in the statistics of the forgotten, for various reasons, stopped the fight. More wine in the diplomatic negotiations, where "Cazurra and stubborn" Rosas diplomacy, managed to both powers not only recognized the River Paraná and the Argentine interior, but had to salute the national flag with 21 guns per requirement now if Rosas. (In the negotiations, speaking the jurist Felipe Arana, Minister of Foreign Affairs).
In a bang worthy of a theatrical scene, Romero then refers the success of the military forces of Roses ", not the Argentine, reiterating the old trick already used, which served to distract the reader not warned, and continues to serve still, though not as effectively. Then, according to Romero, Parlmeston Alberda replaced in 1846, and as the second was the advocate of force, while it was Parlmeston negotiation, triumphed among the theory of negotiation. So we had peace and victory, not by merit, but others.
Far from it, what happened was that the war had been won in 1846. Not only for the victory in the Narrows Quebracho where our forces torched 7 merchant fleet, caused extensive damage to the warships and merchant, and many casualties for the crews, but for the height of the coastal cliffs of this part of the Paraná, one's own forces were , 4 dead and only a handful of wounded. It was not the only factor, until a few days before June 4, the boats were sheltering in Corrientes, but the failure of the commercial operation that had led the operation "liberation" of our rivers, was no longer attractive, but also , entrerrianas troops from the armies of Governor Urquiza, adding victories came and threatened Corrientes grab, which they achieved a few months later. Not only had no money but safety for ships from Europe. San Martin had been asked months ago and from Naples had responded in a note that was first published in a British newspaper, and then one French. This is not the plot of a Hawk, against holding doves. Whole story is that Mr. Romero should know, since it has the trappings of a researcher at the CONICET. It is then, returning to the controversy surrounding the article published on 18 November, to honor what initially began to win on Nov. 20 despite the defeat of that day, and continued earning on January 16, 1846 in San Lorenzo, in the countless battles with flying artillery delivered within the first month of that year, after this, until the Battle of Angostura, and the subsequent fighting until the initiation of negotiations. An operation on a larger scale, had been dismissed in 1838 by France, and it was then because of its high cost and uncertain results, as San Martín had appreciated in your letter of Naples, therefore, welcome the celebration of victory war and diplomacy, in both fields Argentina won the Confederation.
Later in his article wonders if the action was "national" and, in quotation marks. A Romero seems doubtful. First let us note that the revisionists, we think everything national is best for the nation in spiritual and material. Here we have developed a culture that has values \u200b\u200band disvalues. We seek to promote the values \u200b\u200band correct their opposites. Certainly this is a difficult task, but among other things, we are revisionists because it is part of that task. Then do not deny that what makes the "national" is long, so we reject the idea that the national born in 1810. Rather, we think that the spirit of nationalism takes the form of metal smelting in a crucible. Each one contributes his own to the common ground, but not individually, but that takes as its own what others contributed with their input. This has built our culture and nothing says that this can and must change. The idea of \u200b\u200bvolgeist that we revisionists Romero said, is an idea that a bunch of versions of that share. But he is wrong once again attribute to a fixation on the idea of \u200b\u200bspirit and realization of the national. The "Creole" is a mixture of Hispanic ethnic groups, indigenous and Mediterranean, with other languages \u200b\u200bof the same origin, with a mentality that began to form when Europeans explorers cut ties with the old world, and intertwined with the Americans, began see the world from here. According
the author said later, in 1845 the Argentine government was under construction. This is true, in January 1831 by the Federal Pact was the kickoff for the formation of the State, after twenty years of frustration. By the Pact, Argentina Confederation was formed, which adhered to all provinces. The nation had declared within the period of almost two years from 1831, and then was refined what had been improvised or imperfect. Rosas said the unity of the provinces, as Sarmiento said, his chief critic. And here we find another cheap shot by Mr. Romero, "... it is certain that Rosas and preventing blocking Paraná the free navigation of rivers, said the interests of Buenos Aires, a province, it is good to remember, until 1862 wavered between integrating the new state or form an autonomous state. "First of all, free navigation of rivers, was for foreign vessels, as the Argentines possessed of that freedom, second, who segregated the province of Buenos Aires and held that position until 1862, were the enemies of Rosas, which lasted until 1880 and unleashed a fierce fight to prevent capitalization of the city of Buenos Aires.
To end this response has abounded in working to dismantle the arguments of Mr. Romero, apt to confuse reader who does not know history, the writers say neorrevisionistas-author of the article in La Nación confesses historians call costs you do not feel concerned by the allegations that Mr. Romero wins us. Rather, it is a badge of honor that distinguishes us.
Next, it denies that the official story was hidden the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado. Say about it, first, that when I talk about it, it was called combat, reducing their importance in that way, because between two concepts, half a difference significant scale. For the elements committed by both sides, even with the significant reduction technique provided by the Argentines, it was a real battle who speaks own casualties, the damage to Anglo-French fleet that had to stay 40 days Obligado repairing damages, and the military view of the time, including the General San Martín.
Undoubtedly, we must refer to past times of immediate and mediate, about hiding in Argentina's history of this event. In the nineteenth century writings, was not at all, but then in the twentieth century, almost disappeared from the books, especially those of primary school text - mention of the events - and for secondary education. I can attest to this, because I completed my primary and secondary education between 1945 and 1960. One of the authors mentioned by Romero, as proof that the Vuelta de Obligado was cited in the books of the past, José Luis Busa, author ranged from his liberal position, after being informed by revisionist writings published since 1939 by the Institute Historical Research Juan Manuel de Rosas, and other like-minded entities, settled in Santa Fe But Busaniche publications met late in the sixties. The other author mentioned, was Ernesto Palacio, the same can be said of him, since their work was also published and disseminated throughout the sixties. As Ferns and Lynch, its spread was back yet. So that generations of parents outside the reading of history, even in significant proportion gravitates, the history taught in primary and secondary education. Testimony of this is the incredible ignorance of our youth in many aspects, which highlights the Argentine past ..
Later, back on the outcome of the race at that place to be, to remember that it was a defeat. But it happens that the action to which it relates and we now refer, was the first of others that followed the war were the Paraná, undeclared war - by the controllers - but war ends, months later, in the Narrows Quebracho (04/06/1846) with a win partial victory, but victory in the end, because in that battle, another one in the statistics of the forgotten, for various reasons, stopped the fight. More wine in the diplomatic negotiations, where "Cazurra and stubborn" Rosas diplomacy, managed to both powers not only recognized the River Paraná and the Argentine interior, but had to salute the national flag with 21 guns per requirement now if Rosas. (In the negotiations, speaking the jurist Felipe Arana, Minister of Foreign Affairs).
In a bang worthy of a theatrical scene, Romero then refers the success of the military forces of Roses ", not the Argentine, reiterating the old trick already used, which served to distract the reader not warned, and continues to serve still, though not as effectively. Then, according to Romero, Parlmeston Alberda replaced in 1846, and as the second was the advocate of force, while it was Parlmeston negotiation, triumphed among the theory of negotiation. So we had peace and victory, not by merit, but others.
Far from it, what happened was that the war had been won in 1846. Not only for the victory in the Narrows Quebracho where our forces torched 7 merchant fleet, caused extensive damage to the warships and merchant, and many casualties for the crews, but for the height of the coastal cliffs of this part of the Paraná, one's own forces were , 4 dead and only a handful of wounded. It was not the only factor, until a few days before June 4, the boats were sheltering in Corrientes, but the failure of the commercial operation that had led the operation "liberation" of our rivers, was no longer attractive, but also , entrerrianas troops from the armies of Governor Urquiza, adding victories came and threatened Corrientes grab, which they achieved a few months later. Not only had no money but safety for ships from Europe. San Martin had been asked months ago and from Naples had responded in a note that was first published in a British newspaper, and then one French. This is not the plot of a Hawk, against holding doves. Whole story is that Mr. Romero should know, since it has the trappings of a researcher at the CONICET. It is then, returning to the controversy surrounding the article published on 18 November, to honor what initially began to win on Nov. 20 despite the defeat of that day, and continued earning on January 16, 1846 in San Lorenzo, in the countless battles with flying artillery delivered within the first month of that year, after this, until the Battle of Angostura, and the subsequent fighting until the initiation of negotiations. An operation on a larger scale, had been dismissed in 1838 by France, and it was then because of its high cost and uncertain results, as San Martín had appreciated in your letter of Naples, therefore, welcome the celebration of victory war and diplomacy, in both fields Argentina won the Confederation.
Later in his article wonders if the action was "national" and, in quotation marks. A Romero seems doubtful. First let us note that the revisionists, we think everything national is best for the nation in spiritual and material. Here we have developed a culture that has values \u200b\u200band disvalues. We seek to promote the values \u200b\u200band correct their opposites. Certainly this is a difficult task, but among other things, we are revisionists because it is part of that task. Then do not deny that what makes the "national" is long, so we reject the idea that the national born in 1810. Rather, we think that the spirit of nationalism takes the form of metal smelting in a crucible. Each one contributes his own to the common ground, but not individually, but that takes as its own what others contributed with their input. This has built our culture and nothing says that this can and must change. The idea of \u200b\u200bvolgeist that we revisionists Romero said, is an idea that a bunch of versions of that share. But he is wrong once again attribute to a fixation on the idea of \u200b\u200bspirit and realization of the national. The "Creole" is a mixture of Hispanic ethnic groups, indigenous and Mediterranean, with other languages \u200b\u200bof the same origin, with a mentality that began to form when Europeans explorers cut ties with the old world, and intertwined with the Americans, began see the world from here. According
the author said later, in 1845 the Argentine government was under construction. This is true, in January 1831 by the Federal Pact was the kickoff for the formation of the State, after twenty years of frustration. By the Pact, Argentina Confederation was formed, which adhered to all provinces. The nation had declared within the period of almost two years from 1831, and then was refined what had been improvised or imperfect. Rosas said the unity of the provinces, as Sarmiento said, his chief critic. And here we find another cheap shot by Mr. Romero, "... it is certain that Rosas and preventing blocking Paraná the free navigation of rivers, said the interests of Buenos Aires, a province, it is good to remember, until 1862 wavered between integrating the new state or form an autonomous state. "First of all, free navigation of rivers, was for foreign vessels, as the Argentines possessed of that freedom, second, who segregated the province of Buenos Aires and held that position until 1862, were the enemies of Rosas, which lasted until 1880 and unleashed a fierce fight to prevent capitalization of the city of Buenos Aires.
To end this response has abounded in working to dismantle the arguments of Mr. Romero, apt to confuse reader who does not know history, the writers say neorrevisionistas-author of the article in La Nación confesses historians call costs you do not feel concerned by the allegations that Mr. Romero wins us. Rather, it is a badge of honor that distinguishes us.
