McGuirk-The Falklands-Malvinas Conflict in the Political Cartoon
-
Upload
roberto-weiss -
Category
Documents
-
view
103 -
download
1
Transcript of McGuirk-The Falklands-Malvinas Conflict in the Political Cartoon
It Breaks Two to Tangle
Re-construction/Re-disruption of Social Realities
The Falklands-Malvinas Conflict in the Political Cartoon
From Humor to The If… Chronicles
Bernard McGuirk
University of Nottingham
So while in many respects this conflict still
stands out as the last war of a past imperial era,
in others it can now be recognized as the first of
the post cold-war era.
The Official History of the Falklands Campaign
Sir Lawrence Freedman 2005
25 Years… 30 Years? An Unfinished Business…
In Argentina and in the United Kingdom, cultural historians and literary critics
have occasionally addressed and sought to account for the impact of the 1982
conflict on the creative imaginative and artistic output of their respective cultures.
Habitually, however, and with a few notable exceptions, they have done so in
isolation or, at best, with cursory cross-referencing to ‘the other side’. My purpose
is to look beyond national frontiers and to consider not just the so-called Falklands-
Malvinas factor in politics but the conflict’s effect, its multiple effects, by
analysing one of the lasting modes of creative representation of this last of the
traditional wars, as the conflict has been dubbed, namely, the political cartoon.
Although more than a quarter-century has passed since the war broke out,
there continues to be a fascinated or perplexed return to its impact, consequences
and resonances. In recent years, witness the impact of Tristán Bauer’s multiply
prize-winning film of 2004, Iluminados por el fuego, arresting works of fiction,
poetry and drama, painting, sculpture and cinema have drawn on the Falklands-
Malvinas memory bank. Yet what is being remembered? Facts, dates, history? Or
myths, mists, mystery? No definitive answer is available, let alone sought. Strong
images remain, however, and continue to be projected, a reminder that it is
habitually representations of war and conflict that matter; that make a difference.
Whether expressed in histories, documentaries, political satires, protest songs, or
narrative fictions, poems and dramas, war has been a foundational literary act of
societies. In exploring how the cartoon, too, has performed not only as the effect of
social causes but also as the cause of social effects, this short sample study will
address both the indelibly nineteen-eighties Thatcher and Galtieri factors
inseparably from the present, continuingly crucial, questions of how Argentina
represents the conflict to itself, or how the United Kingdom looks at itself and its
cultural war or wars.
Amidst the 2007 twenty-fifth-anniversary plethora of political, drum-
beating, commemorative, nostalgic or vituperative re-evocations of the 1982
conflict in the South Atlantic, to revisit the imaginative representations of war
fostered an understanding of other predicaments, other needs, and different
cultures. It must be stressed therefore that the use of the materials chosen for
analysis here is focussed on a dual objective of familiarizing readers from the one
tradition with images and ideas often well known or taken for granted by the other.
Thus, for example, a British social imaginary suffused for more than two decades
with the penguins and politicians of Steve Bell’s Guardian cartoons might seek
and even find its Argentine counterpart in the exterminated bravery of the censored
and eventually shut down satirical review Humor or the subversive bite of the
newspaper Pagina/12.1 It is more difficult to conceive of relevant equivalence in
the dominant metaphors of respective societies concerned to identify the nation-
state with a warship, a hospital, or the white headscarves of the Mothers of the
Plaza de Mayo; with Trafalgared sea-ventures of a yestercentury or the Iron-Lady
handbags of yesteryear. For when it comes to metaphors there can be no
universals, no smooth transitions, only translations, transversals, re-representations
and risks.
In bringing to the fore caricatural depictions of and in conflict, or in
examining contrastive perspectives on what has broadly been characterized as a
notoriously mythologized affair,2 this analysis will explore perspectives and
introduce angles developed by popular culture deriving from within the
protagonists’ national cultural imaginaries. I endeavour to supplement what has
usually been, primarily, either a ‘Falklands’ or a ‘Malvinas’ critical focus by
adopting an international comparative approach to the topic. Not without risk,
however. Inconceivable is the notion that any author writes from a non-skewed
location; for danger lurks not merely in the brute partisan, it stalks the very
language of self-interrogation, whether singular or plural.
Les animots
Animal: I was tempted [...] to forge another
word in the singular, at the same time close but
radically foreign, a chimerical word that
sounded as though it contravened the laws of the
French language, l’animot […] Ecce animot […]
We have to envisage the existence of ‘living
creatures’ whose plurality cannot be assembled
within the single figure of an animality that is
simply opposed to humanity […] Ecce animot
[…] assuming the title of an autobiographical
animal, in the form of a risky, fabulous, or
chimerical response to the question ‘But me,
who am I?’ (Derrida 2002: 409; 416).
‘No hay que buscarle tres pies al gato’ [It’s no use looking for a three-legged cat],
especially when the four-legged animot is out there still to be read, or staring one
in the face. Yet if proverbs travel with some difficulty, for too many political or
cultural commentators imaginative representations translate not at all. The self-
blinding critic is the one who looks only for defining moments or emblematic
works of art within a sphere pre-designated as either ‘the Falklands’ or ‘the
Malvinas’ War, without taking into account that the ten-and-a-half-week episode,
which has for too long borne a restrictive and puzzling label, was but an event – at
once explicable and tragic – in a greater conflict or conflicts. In the United
Kingdom, pundits have unconscionably overlooked, or been ignorant of, the near
decade-long ‘process’ of Dirty War, Malvinas folly, troubled post-conflict re-
emergence of a still-traumatized Argentine sovereign state, nation and collective
psyche and the will of citizens demanding recognition of both themselves and their
urgent readings of a painful recent history.
The pages of Humor, in the immediate post-conflict phase of mid-to-late
1982, abound with released animo(t)sity. The demons of a repressed national
psyche, however, as will become clear, often bear an uncanny resemblance to those
of the adversary. From the many striking cartoon representations of the Argentine
magazine’s take on the recently ended conflict and on a continuing struggle with
the still sullied mind-cast of a far from finished Dirty War, the cartoonist Montag’s
transmogrification of a populace’s plight is chosen because of its adjacency to
what was to become, in the UK, and in The Guardian newspaper, Steve Bell’s
foundational configuration of his quarter-of-a-century critique of Thatcherism, and
its aftermath, ‘The Penguin’ and his matelot matey, ‘Kipling’. As Argentina was
obliged by the cartoonist to begin, at least, to come to terms with a ‘radically
foreign’ self-in-other/other-in-self, we, too, d’après Derrida, are tempted ‘to
envisage the existence of “living creatures” whose plurality cannot be assembled
within the single figure of an animality that is simply opposed to humanity’:
Figure 1
Montag’s mock epigraph to his cartoon ‘Viva la vida’ [‘Long live life’] reads:
‘“Las penas son de nosotros, los pingüinos son ajenos” (Cantito folklórico
japonés)’ [‘“The pains are our own, the penguins someone else’s” (Little Japanese
folksong)’]. It lays the path for a distancing effect that, to the uninformed observer,
might do little to contextualize, let alone explain, the ostensible disparity between
the depiction of the military figure, a hardly disguised and ever-perplexed Head of
State, à la General Leopoldo Galtieri, ensconced in the Casa Rosada, initially
disturbed, irritated and eventually uncomprehending in the face of the mass protest
of an identifiably caricatured Plaza de Mayo.
The banners and placards glimpsed through the window of the Presidential
office carry the familiar demands of a nation’s urgent need for survival, for
legality, and for a future freed from the fear of the disappearances either of loved
ones or, even, of the selves of an abject body politic. What the dictator sees,
however, when he can be bothered to look, is a population transfigured… for his is
an exclusively Malvinas-coloured perspective on the relationship between
government dictat and civil society. The dye is cast by Montag’s imaginative
vision of what is seen and yet not seen of the body politic, whether by yet another
in a long line of self-blinding military Presidents or by an on-guard common
soldier blithely off-guard (perhaps because of over-familiarity) to the repression on
which he turns his back but, at the same time, serves to enforce, reinforce and
perpetuate. Without a blush himself, he vacuously underpins the governmentality
of the Casa Rosada.
The cartoonist draws on a classic trope of delay: seen from inside the
Presidential Palace, the windows frame and disclose ‘QUE’; then ‘QUEREMO’,
‘DESAPAREC’, and ‘NO HA DERECH’… less than prevaricating, more than
provocative. The reader-viewer, proleptically more knowing than the
superannuated misreader of the signs and sighs of a stutteringly anguished nation,
namely, el Señor Presidente, invests in decoding the metonymic populace’s ever-
attenuated and too-often strangled cry. So persuaded is the dictator that the vox
populi can be controlled and redirected by the slogan of the nation’s collective
obsession that ‘Las Malvinas son argentinas’ [‘The Malvinas are Argentina’s], he
overlooks its inevitable inversion. For, in Montag’s ‘Viva la vida’ [‘Long live
life’], and in the transmogrified animot imaginary, ‘las argentinas son las
Malvinas’ – the ‘madres de la Plaza de Mayo’ [‘The mothers of the Plaza de
Mayo’], en masse, demand and achieve the completion of their plea, the full
articulation of their and the nation’s sovereign right to self-expression and freedom
of speech: ‘Queremos vivir’, ‘Futuros a desaparecer’, ‘No hay derecho’ [‘We want
to live’, ‘Disappearing futures’, ‘You’ve no right’]. Specters of Ma---s? Or The
State of the [Argentine] Debt, the Work of Mourning, though hardly, as yet, The
New International.
For the penguin animot remains the abject oppressed; the nation is as yet
protected, albeit preposterously, by the anachronistic man-at-arms of a haughty,
oblivious, uncaring military, against the overdue fall of the abject oppressor. For
that caricaturing we shall have to wait, though not for long; another Argentine
cartoonist, Horatius, will soon cross that bridge for us, post-conflict. In the state of
recent siege of 1982, Montag’s depiction juxtaposed, brutally, a gender-marked
confrontation of pregnant female protest and sterile male power. Clustered around
the statue of a spear-holding warrior-maiden figure – ‘Liberty leading the
penguins’ – the animots mothers-to-be, mothers nursing, or mothers bereft, beaks
tight shut, conducted with improvised banners and placards their silent vigil cum
demonstration. The solid edifice of bureaucratic institutionalism that sheltered the
military dictator can be the better understood in the light of what Claire Johnston
has defined as that dangerous iconography that ‘places man as inside history and
therefore changing and woman as outside of it and eternal’ (Johnston 2000: 23).
Montag’s cartoon, however, inverts and subverts such a staged relationship by
having the radical change engendered by female animosity towards the unchanging
sovereign power of Argentine Fascism outed as a uniform male preserve. Thus,
both in the Plaza de Mayo and throughout the Nation, ‘the time is out of joint’ in
the rotten den marked ‘State’.3
Of penguins, albatrosses, lions and… a robot
From April to June 2007, The Guardian newspaper, throughout the period of the
conflict’s seventy-four day anniversary, has replenished another nation’s appetite,
that fed by the UK’s most famous cartoonist’s very particular take on the albatross-
threatened islands of doom, in Steve Bell’s If… Falklands flash-back to both the
‘If…’ and the questioning of history of a fallen, yet favourite, working-class hero,
Reg (less far from Raj than from Rudyard) Kipling.
The If… Chronicles, Bell’s by now legendary daily cartoon strip saw the
emergence from the South Atlantic imaginary of ‘The Penguin’ eleven days after
the Argentine invasion of the real Islands on 2 April 1982.4 It is befriended by the
loyal but sceptical epitome of the British Naval Jack Tar sailor, ‘Kipling’ (‘Born
Grantham, Lincs 1926’) [the year and the place of Margaret Thatcher’s birth] who,
as the Task Force returns at the end of the conflict, is employed to take orders
from, but blurtingly to contest, the smug triumphalism of ‘The Commander’. A
typical example of their dialogue is as follows:
The Commander: ‘Well, Kipling, it seems that victory is ours!! Johnny
Gaucho has thrown in his poncho at last! A triumphant vindication of our
principled stand! The message has gone out loud and clear to every tin-pot
dictator across the globe: “Hands off the British lion! – He may be old, he may
be slow to rouse but when it comes to the crunch…”’
Kipling: ‘… he’s still a blood-thirsty moth-eaten psychopath!!’
The Commander: ‘You’re a treacherous cynical bounder! Kipling! This has
been a time of genuine heroism, Kipling. In future, people will look to this
period for inspiration… a time when our options were clear-cut; when we
quite simply did what had to be done [In the background the sun sets on the
little gun-boat’s fluttering Union Jack]. You know, Kipling, war has a lot of
drawbacks but it certainly does bring people together. We bury our differences
and unite against the common foe!!’ (Bell 1984: 9).
In the final quadrant, ‘The Penguin’ is singing: ‘The party’s over… It’s time to call it
a da-a-ay…’ as ‘The Commander’ shouts at the bird that is giving him the bird: ‘Be
quiet you feathered terrorist!!.’ (10).
When in time-honoured fashion, ‘The Commander’ ‘broaches the grog’
[serves out the Navy rum], Kipling, bearing the beribboned matelot’s cap of HMS
Incredible, and failing to understand his officer’s naval parlance of yesteryear, says
incredulously, ‘I beg your pardon?’
The Commander: ‘Grog, man, grog!! You’re a damned odd egg, Kipling, but
you’re a decent sort underneath! Get it down you, man! “To Victory”!! Give
the damn Penguin some! He may be an outright bounder but we’ve come
through a lot together!!’
The Penguin: ‘It’s against my religion, matey!’ (10).
As they set course for home, told to cheer up by the Commander, who informs him,
‘You’re got a face like a haemorrhoidal horse! We won man! Let’s celebrate
properly!!’, Kipling indulges in a bout of post-conflict prolepsis as he shares both the
grog and his thoughts with his pipe-smoking, lantern-jawed, superior: ‘I’m thinking
about the consequences of all this, and they’re profoundly depressing’(11).
The celebratory return to Albion’s shores is marked by Steve Bell with a
particularly acerbic cartoon sequence:
Figure 2
The quayside, packed with well-wishers, Union Jacks and a bed-sheet inscribed with
‘Welcome Home Conquering Heroes’, is juxtaposed with a troop ship packed with
soldiers and sailors and draped with all manner of banners: a Skull and Cross Bones;
Land of Hope and Glory; a Union Jack; Britannia Rules the Waves; Easy! Easy!
Maggie Rules OK; Call Off the Rail Strike or We’ll Call in an Air Strike; Rah! Rah!;
Woof! Woof!; We’ve Been Good Boys; Lock Up Your Daughters. The armoured
nuclear punts, hidden by the massive troop ship, are greeted on the other bank of the
river by a single and forlorn flag holder, no doubt daunted and crestfallen at the sight
of the Commander’s holding a placard ‘We’d do it again ma’am’, whilst shouting
‘Stop it, Kipling!’ to the disabused able seaman sitting atop the mast and flying an
ensign that reads ‘I’m alive and I’m redundant!’. In the background, a second punt
carries the message ‘Smash bourgeois revisionism’:
Commander: ‘Well, it seems that this is goodbye, Kipling. The best of luck to
you in civvy street – you’re going to need it if you continue to entertain those
funny ideas!’
Kipling: ‘Goodbye, Commander’.
In the customs house, Kipling is confronted by a customs officer:
‘Welcome back hero!! What have you got in the bag? Any animal products?
Anything to declare??’
The Penguin, popping out of the bag:
‘I certainly have: “Watch out Margaret Thatcher!!”’ (19).
A star is born. ‘The Penguin’, (‘Hatched Port Grantham, Falkland Islands 1926’) [the
actual year of M T’s birth; the virtual place of her re-birth as PM Britannia], is
provided by Bell with a thumb-nail biography:
Having spent his early years in traditional Penguin pursuits, the Penguin
became disaffected with the prevailing colonist ethic in the rookery and
dropped out. After a brief spell as a guano smuggler, he got a job as a lookout
for a firm of Argentinian scrap dealers. With the arrival of the taskforce he
joined the Royal Navy on an informal freelance basis, befriending Able
Seaman Reg Kipling, crewman on the armoured nuclear punt HMS
‘Incredible’, who ultimately helped to smuggle the Penguin into Great Britain
as an illegal black and white immigrant. Since then he has been on the run.
His interests include show business, tap-dancing and fish (18).
The representation, on either side, of a land projected as fit for heroes turns sour
immediately following the outbreak of a troubled peace. Never more so than in the
cartoon genre where, certainly, British artists would find in the South Atlantic
confrontation ample inspiration for a satirical pungency that, replicated in an Argentina
under murderous censorship, could prove fatal, as catalogued, for instance, by Blaustein,
Zubieta, Nouzeilles and Montaldo. While a comparison of the respective cartoon and
comic strip traditions of the two nations over the last quarter of a century is another story
– and one that demands an extended study5 – it is important to recall here the
prominence attributed by earlier critics, notably Tim Wilcox, James Aulich, Klaus
Dodds and David Monaghan to the artistic and caricatural representation of the conflict.6
Kevin Foster, in his chapter on ‘Heroes and Survivors’, having demolished the
‘mythopoeic representation’ of the Falklands War as ‘a romance quest’, also notes the
ambivalence of the return whereby, for many ex-combatants, ‘it is somehow
questionable to come through a battle unscathed’ (Foster 1999: 107-08). He includes, by
way of illustration of the theme of the veteran as ‘a political embarrassment’ (though
making no further comment on, presumably allowing it to speak for itself), one of Steve
Bell’s most celebrated cartoons, that which depicts the London Victory Parade (Bell
1983: 55-56). The march-past of Navy, Army and Special Air Service (SAS) and the
salute from the Union Jack-bedecked rostrum of Margaret Thatcher and her entourage
of husband Denis, Defence Secretary John Nott and a Blimpish retired officer (with
incongruously ‘Latin-length’ moustache) are the staple ingredients of Bell’s lampoon.
The killer touch comes in the last panel when, after the parading clones of a steel-jawed,
neck-bepearled Thatcher herself, and of her then and since notorious hard-line Cabinet
Ministers of (un-)Employment and (3Rs) Education, respectively, Norman Tebbit
(shouldered bicycle pump with limp connector in place of cocked rifle) and Rhodes
Boyson (nail-pierced educator’s cane erect and at the ready) have trooped by, an
uninvited and unexpected ambulance with bandaged driver and passenger join the
procession.
Figure 3
The reaction of the PM is to cover with her left hand the gaze of the diminutive onlooker
immediately to her right and, with her right hand, her own unblinking stare. Her trio of
acolyte grandees follow suit. ‘¿Qué pasa?’ [‘What’s going on?’], the uninvited Argentine
might ask. Freedman’s account, in the ‘Thanksgiving’ chapter of his Official History
of the Falklands Campaign, of the background to the 12 October 1982 Victory
Parade, might offer the outsider looking in a clue: ‘A small pacifist demonstration
made little impact: more upset was caused by an initial reluctance to allow wounded
servicemen in their wheelchairs to have a prominent position’ (Freedman 2005: 664).
The little attendant – the omnipresent infernal machine of State – is a
configuration of humanoid camera and gun: ‘the Panopticon of Bentham is the
architectural figure of this composition. We know the principle on which it was based
[….] All that was needed, then, is to place a supervisor in a central tower [….] Visibility
is a trap’ (Foucault 1977: 200). Bell had introduced Margaret and Denis to ‘Robot’ but
recently, on a ‘Far Eastern jaunt’. Impressed, she had had it imported, her ‘Think Tank’
tasked to come up with the year’s ‘catchphrase for the 1982 Conservative Party
Conference. It spewed out two possibilities: ‘either “Crawl, you scum” or “Next Stop,
Oblivion”’. The PM had opted for the latter.7 Potential, now, however, in the crossing
of the Prime Minister’s hands – blinding and self-blinding simultaneously – is an
erasure of both the all-seeing panopticon and (wilfully) of its self-benighted
supervisor; Bell’s prolepsis to post-Foucauldian critiques of the device’s
effectiveness. More alarming however is the less embryonic prefiguration in the
(herself ever-under-surveillance) orchestrator’s double-armed gesture of a mal-formed
swastika, a sign to be read in consonance with the accompanying iconography of
cloned, look-alike, storm-troopers, unapologetically visible as they march past, in
contrast with the facially invisible but powerfully influential SAS.
To look in Argentina for a comparable effect is to find further and telling
difference. In the immediate aftermath of the downfall of the military government,
Humor was able to publish a cartoon by Horatius that depicts, inseparably, a Defeat
and Victory Parade; in a single frame, and at a glance. Or in a gaze:
Figure 4
Seven pale blue and white sash-draped and medal-heavy high-ranking military
officers file past a placard that reads: ‘Gran Desfile Presidentes De Facto’ [‘Grand
Procession [of] De Facto Presidents’]. Facially, they are all too recognizable as
leaders of the various juntas who had carried out the (far from de iure) ‘functions’ of
Head of State. As they march, from the Right, in high goose-step but in low dudgeon,
the attendant populous that throngs the road-sides directs its collective gaze from left
to right, no doubt in expectation of more uniformed authoritarians to follow the likes
of Onganía (1966-70), Lami Dozo (1976-81 junta; Air Force), Massera (1976-81
junta; Navy), Videla (1976-81 junta; Army), Viola (1981), Galtieri (1982), Bignone
(1983). But the last of the top brass, Bignone, already out of kilter in wearing carpet
slippers rather than be-spurred jackboots, uses his arms and hands in another proleptic
unfolding of regimented discipline. He points to his feet with the left hand while
raising the right to cup his mouth in a gesture of obsequious farewell: ‘¡Epa! ¿Qué
están mirando? Yo soy el último’ [‘Hey! What are you looking at? Me, I’m the last’].
A glance at his headwear reveals that the peak of his cap bears only the fading
resemblance to the penguin-figure that, in varying degrees of prominence, sits atop
the frowning expressions of each of his predecessors.
As in the case of Bell’s embryonic undoing of panopticon power, it is the
authority-bearing figure in the Horatius cartoon that prompts a reminder of the need
for a different gaze. Beatriz Sarlo was to take up the challenge implied, for both the
people as a whole and for a new generation of thinkers who would have to see
differently, but never with indifference:
They were disposed to theorize the need for organizations of iron, panopticons
from the control tower of which all could be seen and things be decided upon.
There were intellectual leaders who were suspicious of intellectuals in general
because they were showing themselves to be prepared to abandon specific
perspectives according to the historic task that knowledge, and the power of
knowledge, had placed in their hands. They believed then that social change is
something that very few can direct and to which, through argumentation,
education and force, the ones being directed must yield themselves up (Sarlo
1994: 174).
The caricatural will draw habitually on the stereotype of recognizability but will be
the more effective, as an agent of potential change, when it details what is different.
Similarity draws attention; difference calls to attention. Take, for example, Bell’s Jack
Tar pastiche in both The If Chronicles and If... Only Again, archetype of the naval
tradition of ‘Jolly tars are our men’, ‘always ready, steady, boys, steady’. They’ll
‘fight and [they’ll] conquer again and again’.8 Inasmuch as his cartoons project the
recognizable, however funny, personage of the loyal subject, sterling in times of war,
unchanging, archetypally conservative, they at once partake of the cliché and open a
space for the disruption of the culture represented. How? Not by the standard nature-
culture binary but by another juxtaposition. Instead of a friendly, great, or even hostile
nature, we are presented with a bald penguin. Nature is inverted, contradicted,
exploded, in a cartoon tradition of animot liberation. ‘The Penguin’ is rendered
invulnerable to injury or death through excess. It thereby becomes the subversive, the
unpalatable, the absolute other not of a Romanticized ‘natural’ man but of a home-
front self, ‘othered’ by, and with, the over-acculturated Jack Tar.
Shortly before and immediately after the Victory Parade strip came the two
cartoons that strike a keynote of percipience for subsequent representations of the
conflict on both sides of the Atlantic. In the one, as has been shown, the ‘Welcome
Home Conquering Heroes’ of the flag-wavers’ banner was juxtaposed with Kipling’s
fluttering private ensign: ‘I’m alive and I’m redundant’ (19). In the other, The
Penguin asks: ‘What now, Kipling, me ol’ matey?’; to which comes the response:
‘Well… I was thinking about suicide’ (56). Framed alongside them, heads on the
railway lines before the rictus-visaged and fast-approaching express of Thatcherism,
kneel the Gang of Four politicians, those Social Democrats who but a year before the
Falklands War had launched their breakaway from the Labour Party, pledging ‘to
reconcile the nation’ and ‘heal divisions between classes’ (BBC News, 26 March,
1981). Sick transit… A crafty inversion effect is set in train by Bell whereby not just
the penguin, the sheep and the albatross but all the creatures of conflict are configured
as putative pets or poodles of State. More sombrely, Kipling’s prolepsis captured the
reality that it was not the politicians but the ex-combat veterans, on both sides, who
put their head on the line; more have died, in the post-conflict, from suicide, than in
the land battles of the 1982 conflict itself.9
Plus ça a changé… In Argentina, Sarlo was still wrestling with the
paradox, or dilemma, of the role of intellectuals in the post-proceso and post-conflict
era some twelve years on:
There can be no nostalgic return to images that seemed just and good in the
past; but nor can there be any critical conformity from what emerges from
their break-up. The figure of the intellectual (the artist, the philosopher, the
thinker), as it was construed in classic modernity, has strode off into the
sunset. But some of the functions which that figure considered its own are still
required by a reality that has changed – and therefore accepts neither
legislators nor prophets as guides (Sarlo 1994: 180).
The warning of Derrida, written incidentally at the time of the proceso, echoes on:
‘We can pronounce not a single destructive proposition which has not already had to
slip into the form, the logic, and the implicit postulations of precisely what it seeks to
contest’ (Derrida 1978: 280). Grand narratives are by no means definitively
deconstructed and returning phantoms can be seen to haunt and spectrally to populate
the representations of conflict contemporaneously and forever.
Post-
Fiction’s relationship with fact, as demonstrated nowhere more comprehensively than
in Lucrecia Escudero’s analyses, Malvinas: el gran relato and Media Truth: Fiction
and Rumors in War News in the Malvinas-Falklands Conflict, is particularly strained
in press coverage of the Falklands-Malvinas conflict on both sides, notoriously in the
Manichean tabloidism of The Sun’s headline, ‘Gotcha!’, on the sinking of the General
Belgrano, or in Revista Tal Cual’s demonizing cover series on ‘La Thatcher Peor que
Hitler’ [‘Thatcher Worse than Hitler’], ‘Más Mala que El Diablo’ [‘More Evil than
the Devil’] and ‘La Thatcher Está Loca’ [‘Thatcher Is Mad’];10 but also generally in
what the English novelist Julian Barnes has categorized as ‘the worst reported war
since the Crimean [....] The fact that the rest of the world viewed the war as a
brainless squabble between nostalgic imperialism and nostalgic fascism was
irrelevant; we didn’t care what the rest of the world thought except to imagine that it
was impressed’ (Barnes 2002: 2).
If ‘the two sides to every story’ cliché is predictably ignored in, especially,
the popular press’s adversarial coverage of the conflict, critics subsequently adjusted
the imbalance. In Argentina, the panorama was perceived to be problematic. In ‘De
cómo la literatura cuenta la Guerra de Malvinas’ [‘On How Literature Recounts the
Malvinas War’], subtitle of their seminal meditation ‘Trashumantes de neblina, no las
hemos de encontrar’,11 Martín Kohan, Oscar Blanco and Adriana Imperatore, already
in 1993, felt able to look back as follows:
The Malvinas conflict, like all wars, is a confrontation of bodies and, at the
same time, a confrontation of discourses [....] The war unfolds a construction
of versions ever struggling to impose themselves, even when the fight
between bodies has been concluded. Two ways of recounting the Malvinas
war have predominated in the dispute for the terrain of collective memory:
one, that we might call the triumphalist version; the other, the version of
lament [....] What is certain is that both are inscribed, finally, in one and the
same frame, participating in one and the same logic: the logic of the Grand
National Narrative, that is the Great Argentine Narrative [....] A symbolic
system: name, flag, anthem, coat of arms, pantheon of heroes and deeds [....]
This story is effective when it succeeds in dissolving internal differences,
making them converge and coincide in the values of national unity (Kohan,
Blanco and Imperatore 1993: 82).
The point is that, whether or not the pro-war or the anti-war discourses predominate at
any one moment, neither ‘version’ can escape the entrapment in its own logic of this
‘Gran Relato Argentino’. Thus, while situating the mainstream artistic tropings of the
conflict as either veering nationalist or going transcendental, they establish the
ideological and the discursive limitations of most depictions of the war: ‘everything
can be said, except that the problem of sovereignty over the islands lacks relevance’
(83). Guilefully, the authors are thus setting up both a patently inadequate binary and
a man-of-straw fall-guy – the Nation and its representations – before indulging their
crucial, and irrefutable, claim that, already from within the period of the war itself to
the time of their writing eleven years on, a differential discourse has existed: ‘other
narratives that, yes, deconstruct El Gran Relato and that belong to the discursive field
of the literary’ (83).
Their explanation of why they are unsettled by, and require an alternative
to, a tired national narrative, serves as a crucial Argentine perspective into the style
and tenor of the works that they praise. They go on to identify a keynote of
subversion that might apply not only to the Argentine writers and artists they single
out:
Their operation consists of deconstructing and of not destroying: what
destruction triggers is a logic that attacks from outside of the system in
question; its objective is to overcome and to replace that other system,
therefore it bombards but does not dynamite it. To dynamite it, to deconstruct
it, assumes acting from the inside: recognizing the internal logic and
structure in order to locate the key points, the pillars that support the system
and that will bring it down: a task of the spy, of the saboteur (84).
They finger, of course, the pressure points of the ‘Gran Relato Nacional’ at precisely
its most vulnerable junctures: causes are not inherently just; jokes are more serious
than the purportedly real; investment is outperformed by inversion. Classically, in
deconstructive parlance, between the inside and the outside there is ever less
difference than différance.
It is salutary to look back, in contrast, at a balefully dismissive but
influential retrospect that emerged, as late as the twentieth anniversary of the conflict,
from the durable Anglo-centric perspective on the narrowly focussed Falklands – as
distinct from the Falklands-Malvinas – effect on the artistic imagination of the
previous two decades:
Though attractive to screenwriters and dramatists, the Falklands war has
made little impact [….] The Falklands are lost and regained between
chapters. This omission is revealing of the status the conflict now has in
British history as the mad aunt no one quite mentions: a position that it
shares with the Prime Minister of the time [….] It’s hard to imagine a British
writer or director getting excited now about making a Falklands film [….]
The reason that almost all the Falklands fictions were created within a few
years of the conflict is that the military adventure never did become our
Vietnam. Margaret Thatcher, who so wanted to be Winston Churchill, had
only a very brief period as a war leader before other events – poll tax, Europe
– eclipsed the significance of the Falklands [….] Though the blood spilled in
the Falklands has left little cultural stain, it may have got into the blood more
than we think (Lawson 2002).
To have heard a mere and perplexing echoing, and in the peremptory voice of the
high-profile English pundit Mark Lawson, of the tentative views expressed by critics
during the first post-conflict decade, was as surprising as it was unconvincing. Such
assertions therefore demanded to be tested and, it would turn out, challenged. Do we
simply stop reading when the conflict has been declared a ‘between chapters’ incident
in the history of the British absurd?
Lawson’s final sentence, however, is amplified albeit unconsciously in a
relevant contemporary context by Paul Greengrass, the director of The Murder of
Stephen Lawrence, of 1999, Bloody Sunday, of 2001, and United 93, of 2006, when
interviewed for a BBC 2 TV documentary on the cultural representation of conflict
and violence, Imagining the Truth. In the summer of 2006, he expressed the view that
‘If you look clearly and unflinchingly at a single event, you can find in its shape
something much larger than the event itself – the DNA of our times’ (Greengrass
2006, in interview). Perhaps the cultural difference of the moment makes the English-
based observers – as they see it – of a peculiarly Argentine process of representation
of the truths of ‘their’ Dirty War, of ‘their’ Malvinas conflict, of ‘their’ post-conflict
traumas of reconstruction and engineered bankrupcy, prefer a different genre of vérité
from many of the artistic expressions still to be explored. An unfinished business,
indeed, is the political and cultural fall-out, over a quarter century, of that ‘last war of
the post imperial era’, ‘first of the post cold-war era’ of Freedman’s take on the
Official History.
Simon Jenkins, reviewing Freedman in July 2005, both delivers a summary
verdict on the history and strikes a note of caution:
I kept sensing Freedman pulling his punches in order to protect someone’s
feelings [...] he is gentle to a fault on Britain’s intelligence failure, largely
ignoring the Argentine planning background [….] The Falklands was the
oddest of wars. Fewer than 2,000 British colonists in the South Atlantic
resisted British pressure to do a deal with adjacent Argentina. Unlike the
non-white colonials of Diego García or Hong Kong, they were indulged in
their intransigence [….] We now know that Argentina’s invasion plan was
part of a deal in 1981 between its navy, discredited as torturers in ‘dirty war’,
and the new junta leader, Leopoldo Galtieri [….] The junta was toppled,
Thatcher’s tottering career was rescued and her ascendancy assured for eight
more years. British losses were 253 dead and 777 badly injured (there were
652 Argentine dead). The cost to the UK was some £4 billion. It was a
straightforward war, but it is as well that history does not do value for money
[….] Any war these days is a failure whether of politics, diplomacy or
military deterence. The Falklands was a trivial conflict yet one awash in
lessons [….] Put crudely, the British Establishment does not piss on victory,
and future generations pay the price [….] For British policy, the war was a
disaster. Thatcher’s sensible defence review had to be torn up, and expensive
carriers retained and replaced. The chiefs of staff still demand ‘Falklands-
style’ capability, allowing ministers to play at empire in Afganistan and Iraq.
Thatcher claimed that the war vindicated her ‘strong defence policy’. That
was absurd. She won only because Argentina invaded before her ‘weak’
policy had time to bite. She would have lost had Galtieri invaded on
Lombardo’s plan. That is the central Falklands paradox. Yet without the war
Argentina would not have had democracy, and I am certain, Britain would
not have had the Thatcher revolution. Perhaps history should do value for
money after all (Jenkins 2005: 35-6).
And so must cultural criticism; for Jenkins grasps the need for comparative analysis in
a way that few have shown themselves willing or able to do.12 Sterling or plate, the
currency of culture is coined in history, traded in lives and negotiated in
representations. The Falklands-Malvinas conflict will continue to be both an
unfinished symptom and an uncompletable story, in and through its many imaginative
representations and re-representations, because it is a repository of differing
investments. Recent commentators betray the politico-economic countenance of the
affair and do so often in the stock-in-trade terminology of the bull and bear – or beef
and mutton – analogies drawn from the lore of the respective protagonists. Whence
the mutual animo(t)sity. Trading partners, exchanging stock images of the other, of
the self, and of the other in the self, the self in the other, caricaturists suddenly find
that they have the floor to themselves but that they cannot control any market within
the regulations of a restrictively national cultural economy.
Retro-spectres
Néstor García Canclini, the renowned Argentine critic and social commentator, not
only updates and warns the cultural analyst on the generic possibilities and dangers
potential in any retrospective on the last quarter century of his country’s history but
also exploits the overlap of politico-economic and imaginative projections of the
Malvinas War and its after-effects in a manner consonant with the aims of this
meditation:
In recent times, testimony as a genre has come under attack, perhaps due to
the debates about its articulation of the real and the imagined, or because it
simultaneously plays with both the dramatic and the farcical. The tension
between these two genres has been pointed out in different accounts of the
Falkland Islands War. This episode was, in part, a grotesque extension of a
war against so-called subversives within Argentina, headed by the military
leaders, and partly a supposed gesture to recover sovereignty, with internal
support and a relative Latin American solidarity. Testimonies of ex-
combatants lamented the lack of experience in battle, the inept and petty state
of the officers, and some even imagined fifteen years after the war – at the
end of the 1990s – that it would be possible to return to battle, to make a
different ending for the movie, so to speak, with better training and
leadership. Meanwhile […] many writers tell the story of the war as a farce, a
sinister game of cunning with no passion, with no heroes or victories, where
it was more important to decline than to defeat. The identity and continental
solidarity claims are replaced by concealment and disguises (Canclini 2004:
13-24).
Canclini but echoes after more than two decades the insight of one of Argentina’s
most prominent writers. Julio Cortázar, on 29 April 1982, after the taking of the
Islands, and pre-figuring any retrospective on finding the balance between heroics and
incompetence, could envisage a more appropriate role for the deemed protectors of
the nation’s safety and integrity: ‘To put it in other terms, what the Argentine people
needed at that time was not that the Army and Navy enter the Malvinas but rather the
barracks; but it is evident enough that the first is a dilatory procedure to continue
avoiding the second’ (Cortázar 1982, in Blaustein and Zubieta 1999: 475).
On epitaphs and epigraphs
A sociology of the negative marketing of a nation, the white and black of an inverse
photography of the self, a darkroom with the need for intermittent light in order to
capture, to frame, to develop and to imprint indelibly on culture the conflict of the
‘underground cell’, has emerged; not in the sense of a terrorist threat to established
government but in the depiction of the government threat to established society.
Government is cell…
In 2007, the national presses on both sides of the Atlantic geared
themselves and their variously vested and invested interests for anniversary
scratchings of illusorily healed-over scars. ‘A new history book’ just ‘distributed to
every secondary school pupil in Argentina’, that tells a wholly familiar and hardly
novel version of the status of the Islas Malvinas, was reported in the following terms:
‘Sovereignty of the Islands remains a popular cause in Argentina, something President
Kirschner clearly wants to tap into before national elections next year’ (The
Guardian, 27 September 2006, 18). The next day, a hardly coincidental counterpoint
was trumpeted – recounting the possible first ‘disappearance’ of the peace, albeit the
real and very troubling case of Jorge Julio López, under the headline, ‘“Dirty War”
torture witness goes missing’ and followed by ‘Former members of the military and
their sympathisers claim that the Dirty War was a necessity to prevent the take-over of
the country by communist guerrilla movements’ (The Times, 28 September 2006, 39).
Television, too, was primed for action as Carol Thatcher visited the Islands and
Argentina to trail Mummy’s War.
In it, Carol Thatcher will recount how the Falklands conflict transformed her
mother into a wartime leader, detailing the stresses and strains of the war on
the former Premier – from the heady moments of success to the shattering
reality of military setbacks. She said: ‘I saw those 11 weeks from the inside
looking out and happen to admire enormously how Margaret Thatcher
conducted herself as a war leader’.‘But this film won’t be a mother-
daughter hagiography’, Ralph Lee, Channel 4’s commissioning editor, said
(Lee 2007: 1)
Nothing so animated as a mother-daughter hagiography. Ipsa dixit. Ipsae dixerunt?
Nothing so animoted as the dogs of war… or its immortalized, blood-stained, jackal:
Figure 5
Like the news reporting, the caricatural representation of the 1982 war, conflictually,
politically, differently and differentially, will never avoid controversies. That
depiction goes on; untroubled by anniversaries, it has never stopped. It only awaits
informed decoders. The inexcusable insularity of any non-comparative assessment of
a struggle that perhaps in the cartoon re-representation of it can be viewed in the light
of not just, say, Theodor Adorno’s celebrated general proposal for understanding the
effects of war: ‘It is now virtually in art alone that suffering can still find its own
voice, consolation, without immediately being betrayed by it […] it is to works of art
that has fallen the burden of wordlessly asserting what is barred from politics’
(Adorno 1985: 313). For the notion that art and politics must somehow stand
speechlessly, or infantilely, apart from each other is contradicted by the achievement
of such as the artists discussed here. Chosen emblematically to evoke the epic logos
of a little war and its undiminished resonance, their powerful cartooning draws on and
demands, inseparably, discursive and ideological effects.
To imagine no spectral surplus in the art of the cartoon would be to
condemn any national culture where the historical moment is perceived to be a time
out of joint, or where the State is deemed to be in irresolvable debt, and where the
only work to be essayed might be that of mourning, would be to accept and
simultaneously condemn that State to further abjection. The echoes of Derrida bear
me from Marx to mortality in confronting the ethics of writing of and on the
cartooning of war. For, also, ‘I am at war with myself’ but, in the process of
addressing the starkest cultural study of all, that act of ‘The Giving of Death’, that
pervades and suffuses every one of the images-with-texts that I have chosen to
discuss, it would have been untenable to separate the language of cultural criticism
from some supposed alternative carved out for the purpose of respecting what Paul
Fussell appropriately termed the ‘actual and terrible moral challenges’ posed in
every representation of the cultures of war. For thus to condescend would be to
disrespect, too, what Simon Featherstone, commenting on Fussell’s broad caveat,
encapsulated as the ‘closeness of writing to often appalling personal experience’
(Featherstone 1995: 1-2). ‘Finally, I learn to live’, as a writer and cultural critic,
undifferentially… as ‘an autobiographical animal’. To write, no less than to read,
frees us from our spectres.13
Ecce angelus mortis… Requiescat
Figure 6
Why was the conflict, perforce, represented and representable so differently on the
respective sides? Consider the distance between a task carried out by a professional
military cadre and an enterprise undertaken by however courageous victims of
inseparable heroics and incompetence. ‘Task’ and its corollaries will ever be
differentially defined; task as ‘force’; ‘force’ as the exercise of power; ‘power’ as the
imposition of superior strength; ‘superior’ in relation to recruits; ‘recruits’ conscripted
from anywhere within, and yet outside, a (divided) nation (united) in a belief in
patria… Con-scripted. Not just in caricature but, as the ideologically stark cartoon of
Austin underlines, in the confidence trick perpetrated on the Argentine body politic. If
it would appear that the nation is at play in Argentina but that, ever in the illusion of
lasting victory, the nation does not play at war in the United Kingdom, then the
cartoons of an unfinished business, smiled at and, critically, analysed and re-analysed,
invite a revision of such stereotypes. The topoi of piracy and nos habebit humus are
picked up by Austin’s and The Guardian’s British angle on the obituary earned by
Galtieri and his predecessors in their collusion with and overseeing of some thirty
thousand disappearances of Argentine and other citizens. But the spectres of
Perfidious Albion hover over that Saxon readiness to enter a lease-back prior to an
eventually negotiated sovereignty only thwarted by the Buenos Aires junta’s pre-
emptive strike of 2 April 1982. Thereafter, the warrior nation arises, ‘once more onto
the breach’… or onto the breaching of the rules of engagement? ‘Gotcha’ screams the
front page of The Sun that ever sets on the British Empire re-floated. Sink the
Belgrano! mocked the title of an outraged Steven Berkoff’s corrosive agit-prop
drama. And, again, Britannia rules the waves; or, as the three hundred and twenty one
Argentines lost at sea on 2 May 1982 might have in their caricatured obituary,
‘Britannia waives the rules’. For: ‘How many people realise that before that
calculated piece of sabotage not one British soldier had died!’ (Berkoff 1987: 1).
Adventurisms of hubris are never restricted or confinable to any one side. If
the art of war has anything to gain from the cartooned representation of it, the
strategist must look beyond even the classic Chinese 6th Century BC militarist’s most
basic insight that ‘The military is a great matter of the state. It is the ground of death
and life, the Tao of survival or extinction. One cannot but examine it’ (Sun-tzu 2001:
1). The challenge posed by the depiction of war and its effects and, not least, indeed,
through the liberation of its animots, is to recognize that there is nothing which is not
already and always, and inseparably, soul-searchingly conflictual and textual. Ecce
anima? There are but risky, fabulous, or chimerical responses to that question, too.
Il n’y a pas de hors conflit…
Notes
1. See Eduardo Blaustein and Martín Zubieta, Decíamos ayer. La prensa argentina
bajo el Proceso (1998); and Horacio González ‘The Journalist as the People’s
Detective’, in Gabriela Nouzeilles and Graciela Montaldo, The Argentina Reader
History, Culture, Politics (2002). The volumes are landmarks in the scholarship of
memoir.
2. Notably by Kevin Foster in his seminal 1999 analysis Fighting Fictions: War,
Narrative and National Identity.
3. ‘Mourning consists always […] in localizing the dead’, according to Jacques
Derrida in Specters of Marx (1994: 9); the epigraph of the ‘work of mourning’
(déjà et toujours) is ‘The time is out of joint’.
4. The references to Bell’s cartoons are to the subsequently anthologized book
version, first published in 1984.
5. So abundant and rich were the materials that I discovered in the genre when
researching for Falklands-Malvinas An Unfinished Business (Seattle: New
Ventures, 2007) that I devote a second book to them, whence the forthcoming It
Breaks Two to Tangle: Political Cartoons of the Falklands-Malvinas Conflict.
6. See Wilcox’s ‘“We are All Falklanders Now”: Art, War and National Identity’ and
Aulich’s ‘Wildlife in the South Atlantic: Graphic Satire, Patriotism and the Fourth
Estate’ (in Aulich 1992: 58-83; 84-116), Klaus Dodds’s ‘The 1982 Falklands War
and a critical geopolitical eye: Steve Bell and the If… cartoons’ (Dodds 1996: 571-
592), and David Monaghan’s ‘If... :The Falklands War as Cartoon’ (Monaghan
1999: 69-82).
7. The think-tanks – ‘Everything you say is absolutely right Ma’am’ – are a safe bet.
When introduced to them during a visit to the worker-free zone of a car-assembly
line, the PM has only one thing that she would like to ask amidst their pre-
programmed regurgitation of ‘Stop the rot’ and ‘There is no alternative’… Before
she can utter it however the foreman adds to his spiel of ‘these robots work a 24-
hour day, 365 days a year, they need no breaks and no wages’. His selling point?
‘They all vote Conservative’ (Bell 1982: 49).
8. The sea-shanty echoed is the 1759 ‘Heart of Oak’, a song still taught to primary
school pupils, in England and throughout the fading British Empire, until well into
the 1960s. Aulich is drily persuasive on Bell’s depiction of a ‘Jack Tar Agent of
Destiny’ adventurism and the exploitation of a Coleridgean ‘killing of such a
portent of good fortune’ as the albatross in an action that ‘could only have fatal
results’ (Aulich 1992: 98-100).
9. A total of 649 Argentine (321 on the cruiser General Belgrano) and 255 British
military died in the seventy-four day conflict. Some 350 and 300 suicides have
been recorded on the respective sides by those organizations concerned with the
devastating legacy of PTSD, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
10. The Sun 4 May 1982; and Revista Tal Cual of 14 and 28 May and 4 July 1982,
reproduced in Decíamos ayer (471).
11. ‘Trashumantes de neblina’ is an untranslatable pun; it plays on the patriotic
anthem: ‘Tras su manto de neblina/no las hemos de olvidar/Las Malvinas
argentinas/clama el viento y ruge el mar’ [‘Behind the mantle of mist/we shall not
forget them/The Argentine Malvinas/claims the wind and roars the sea’], Marcha
de Las Malvinas [March of the Malvinas]. For the native-speaker, multiple
elements underlie the word play: hints of smouldering mutants, of changing forms
emerging from the mists, and the myths, of the Islands.
12. Contrast the throw-away and dismissively unsubstantiated comparison of two
political and cultural economies made recently, and without a word on the
incommensurable conditions underlying his chosen actors’ experience, of Niall
Ferguson: ‘We were right about Thatcherism [….] Britain was on the road to
becoming Argentina and she introduced the correct policies. And the accusations
of presidential-style, unconstitutional government that were levelled against her
have paled into insignificance with Blair [….] I realised that the worst violence
occurred when three factors – an unhomogenised, multi-ethnic society; economic
volatility; and an empire in decline – combined. When you get a collection of
different people facing economic uncertainty at a time when the old order is
collapsing, then all bets are off and you have a recipe for warfare’ (Ferguson
2006: 3).
13. The echoes from Jacques Derrida’s meditations on ‘Je suis en guerre contre moi-
même’ and ‘Donner la mort’ are taken from Apprendre à vivre enfin (Derrida
2004) and from the last exchange I had with him, in Rio de Janeiro in August
2004, on my way to Argentina to pursue and to lay some of the ghosts of my
present undertaking. The lesson I ingested is reproduced in Pensar a
desconstução (McGuirk, 233-44; in Derrida, 2005) and in ‘Derrida
Trans(at)l(antic)ated’ (McGuirk 2006: 71): ‘Lire la littérature… c’est une
spectrologie… Lire libère les spectres. Mes chants sont méchants’.
Works cited
Adorno, T. (1985) ‘Commitment’ in Arato, Andrew and Gebhardt, Eike (1994) The
Essential Frankfurt School Reader (New York: Continuum), 300-318.
Arato A. and E. Gebhardt (eds) (1985) The Essential Frankfurt School Reader (New York: Continuum).
Aulich J. (ed) (1992) Framing the Falklands War: Nationhood, Culture, and Identity
(Buckingham: Open University Press).
Aulich J. (1992), ‘Wildlife in the South Atlantic: Graphic Satire, Patriotism and the
Fourth Estate’, in Aulich 1992, 84-116.
Barnes J. (2002) One of Britain’s leading novelists recalls how the conflict unfolded
back home. The worst reported war since the Crimean, Falklands Special: The
Television War, The Guardian, 25th of February, accessible at
www.julianbarnes.com/essays.html.
Bell S. (1983) The If Chronicles (London: Methuen).
Benjamin W. (1983) Understanding Brecht, trans. Anna Bostock (London:Verso).
Berkoff S. (1987) Sink The Belgrano! (London: Faber & Faber).
Blaustein E. and M. Zubieta (eds) (1999) Decíamos ayer. La prensa argentina bajo el
proceso (Buenos Aires: Ediciones Colihue).
Derrida J. (1967) L’écriture et la différence (Paris: Éditions du Seuil).
--- (1993) Spectres de Marx (Paris : Éditions Galilée).
--- (2004) Apprendre à vivre (entretien avec Jean Birnbaum) (Paris : Éditions
Galilée/LeMonde).
--- (2006) L’animal que donc je suis (Paris: Éditions Galilée).
Dodds K. (1996) ‘The 1982 Falklands War and a critical geopolitical eye: Steve Bell
and the If… cartoons ‘, Political Geography 15, 6-7, 1996, 571-592.
Featherstone S. (1995) War Poetry An Introductory Reader (Routledge, London &
New York).
Ferguson N. (2006) ‘Unforgiven, unrepentant’, Education Guardian, 30 May 2006, 3.
Foster K. (1999) Fighting Fictions: War, Narrative and National Identity (London:
Pluto).
Foucault M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, trans. Alan
Sheridan (New York, Pantheon).
Freedman L. (2005) The Official History of the Falklands Campaign, vols. I and II,
(London: Routledge).
García Canclini N. (2004) ‘Aesthetic Moments of Latin Americanism’, Radical
History Review (89), 13-24.
González H. (2002) ‘The Journalist as the People’s Detective’ in Nouzeilles and
Montaldo (eds) (2002) The Argentina Reader History, Culture, Politics, 495-499.
Greengrass P. (2006) Interview, BBC 2 documentary, Imagining the Truth, 3rd of
August 2006.
Jenkins S. (2005) ‘The Luck of the War’, The Sunday Times, Culture, 9 July, 35-6.
Kohan M., Blanco O. and Imperatore A. (1993) ‘Trashumantes de neblina, no las
hemos de encontrar. De cómo la literatura cuenta la Guerra de Malvinas’,
Espacios, 13 dicembre 1993, 82-86.
M. Lawson (2002), ‘Our Own Vietnam’, The Guardian, 25th February 2002,
accessible at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,656553,00.html .
Lee T. (2007) www.tomeemayeepa.wordpress.com/tag/poems .
McGuirk B. (2005) ‘Dos espectros de Marx aos espectros do mar…’, Pensar a
Desconstução, ed. Evando Nascimento, (São Paulo: Estação Liberdade) 233-44.
McGuirk B. (2006) ‘Derrida Trans(at)l(antic)ated’, Versus, 100, 41-73.
McGuirk B. (2007) Falklands-Malvinas An Unfinished Business (Seattle: New
Ventures).
McGuirk B. (2008) ‘Animot liberation or oh! what a beastly war; the Falklands-Malvinas conflict in the political cartoon, from Humor to The If… Chronicles, Journal of Romance Studies, vol.8, No. 2, pp. 73-294.
Monaghan D. (1998) The Falklands War: Myth and Countermyth (London:
Macmillan).
Nascimento E. (ed) (2005) Jacques Derrida. Pensar a desconstução (São Paulo:
Estação Liberdade).
Nouzeilles G. and Montaldo G. (eds) (2002) The Argentina Reader History, Culture,
Politics (Durham and London: Duke University Press).
Sarlo B. (1994) Escenas de la vida posmoderna. Intellectuales, arte y videocultura en
la Argentina (Buenos Aires: Ariel).
Tzu S. (1996) The Complete Art of Work (Westview Press Inc, Colorado).
Wilcox 1992 T. (1992) ‘«We are All Falklanders Now»: Art, War and National
Identity’, in Aulich, 1992, 58-83.
Constructing and Disrupting Social Realities: Triumphs and Failures of the Imagination
Professor Bernard McGuirk
Director, Centre for the Study of Post-Conflict Cultures, University of Nottingham
Email: [email protected]