WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED ABOUT THE POLITICAL REALM OF LIFE IN LATIN AMERICA?
Post your response in two well-developed paragraphs. Include at least two quotes from class sources and one quote from an out-of-class source in your response. Please include your name(s) in the body of the post and be sure to comment on other posts as required by your teacher. In-text citations (internal references) and a works cited (same page and post) should also be included. Mr. Macy’s students should identify one writing standard of focus associated with each posting.
STUDENTS IN CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA: Thanks for joining our conversation! Please feel free to provide any thoughts you have about this theme. We would love to hear about your real-life experiences. Please also feel free to comment on our postings. Postings in any language are welcome!
Cole J. Mrs Blooms 6th period.
ReplyDeleteDespite most people that went to America were loyal to the British Monarchy, a new form of government took place. The idea of "Hav[ing] divided national representation into two chambers: that of Representatives and the Senate" (Bolivar). Also, included in the document, it mentions the ability of North America to adopt Britain's government (Monarchy system), but refused and chose an early form of democracy, a harder, more substantial, and fair government. This document goes hand in hand with what was mentioned in the textbook. Also, with the rejection of the adoption of British legislature, this foreshadows a rebellion, which was soon to follow in the American Revolution. This document takes the side of the America's, claiming that at the time of Westernization, the settlers made a good move by initiating an early form of democracy.
The second document comes from Mexico City in 1892 and was written by Jose Marti. In his essay, he talks about people as a whole, not just the individual. He talks about gaining momentum as a country; having an idea and progressing as a whole, regardless of rivalries. "A cloud of ideas is a thing no armored prow can smash through" (Marti). This document reveals that the author is supporting Mexico, and reveals the persistance of the people to have a supportive and fair government. It doesn't talk about this specific idea in our book.
Marti, Jose. http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/marti/America.htm
Simón Bolívar, An Address of Bolivar at the Congress of Angostura (February 15, 1819). (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819Bolivar.html)
(By the way, this post and the one before it are from Faith L, Bloom period 3)
ReplyDeleteCole, I think that democracy being the form of government that the Mexicans attempted to employ is an interesting topic to explore. It is similar to the decline of the Ottomans in that some groups suggested that they adopt Western ways of thought & government to aid their sinking country, the reasoning being that the Western Europeans were so powerful and effective at beating the Ottomans back and taking much of their territory, so it was only logical to be like such a powerful enemy. I wonder if democracy was the same way-after the American Revolution, the United States began to take off in power and growth at an exponential rate, surprising and perhaps intimidating their neighbors across the pond and down in Central America. The United States showed their power in a big way through the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the Mexican cession. So it would seem the logical step that the Mexicans ought to adopt the government form that their defeaters so skillfully employed. But was that really the right decision for them as a newly freed country? Perhaps a government transition from more autocratic rule to democracy would have been more effective, as Mexico was a society built upon inequality and democracy a government form based on the ideal of equality.
Faith L Bloom p. 3 (if this is reposting several times I apologize. My computer is showing that my posts aren't coming up on the blog.)
ReplyDeleteThe Journal of Edward Thornton Tayloe provides an insider’s perspective on the United States’s involvement with the affairs of Mexico. At the time the journal was written, Mexico had recently been liberated and was struggling to find a national identity-what sort of government ought we to unite under? Who should be our leader? What religion should we choose? How are we supposed to run the government? Struggling under the competition of multiple factions, some groups decided to try to unite the people of Mexico against a common enemy instead of uniting them to work together. A group published a “Manifest to the Mexican Nation” in which they attempt to blame the United States for the troubles “under which Mexico is believed to groan”. The author, however, doesn’t agree with them and believes that the faction “falsely attribute[s] to the United States” fault for much of the troubles in Mexico, indicating that he is aware of the Mexican struggle for identity but disagrees with some factional action, and that politics in Mexico were, to say the least, unstable as they fought for independence. This adds to the struggle portrayed in the book and gives it more intensity-due to the broad scope of the text it was unable to give proper treatment to the struggle for independence. It reinforces the idea that revolutions were messy business, and peaceful turnovers of power such as the Glorious Revolution of old in England were rare. Power is one thing that humans love to hold and will not give up easily and will resort to bloodshed to maintain.
Source: Edward Thornton Tayloe, Mexico: 1825-1828, ed. C. Harvey Gardiner (Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 160-4.
The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo ceded most of Mexico’s territory to the United States after the Mexican-American war and was one of their earliest brushes in dealing with foreign policy. The treaty itself purports to lay out a “firm and universal peace” between the US and Mexico, but once it gets to the actual land cession, it is immediately clear that Mexico gets the short end of the stick. Mexico cedes the “top half” of its empire to the United States, from the “Gulf of Mexico” along the “Southern boundary of New Mexico” and must allow the US ships to have free reign in their waters, and receive a paltry 15 million dollars and exoneration of Mexico “from all claims of the citizens of the United States”, a lopsided exchange, to be sure. This early foreign policy act between Mexico and the United States highlights the dependent relationship of Mexico economically and now politically to the United States because of its huge cession of land. The Mexican diplomats were not able to negotiate better terms for themselves in the treaty, pointing to the political instability in the country that is now affecting their geographic reach and inevitably their population because of the millions who will have been forced to move from the lands ceded to the United States. This document enhances the sense of interconnection between these themes-at first glance the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo may seem more of a Western Intervention document, but it was directly affected by the politics in Mexico relating with those in the United States. The statement “history is written by the victors” certainly holds true in this document, it is a legal piece of writing and therefore should be unbiased and fair, and is therefore biased and unfair. The sterile language makes it seem like each country is getting an equal share, but once the actual land and trade divisions are summed up, it is clear that the United States comes out ahead, and Mexico is now in political as well as economic dependency.
The Treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo, 2 Feb 1848
Christian, 16 y.o. (Bogota, Colombia)
ReplyDeleteThe political situation is very unstable in Latin America nowadays, because there are some governments that build disagrees between South American countries.
In 2008 Colombia had an issue with Ecuador and Venezuela, because of a military attack on the frontier. Brasil has some problems with other countries, Bolivia and Argentina are working on unstable democratic government.
However, I think the real problem is with the Venezuelan president, Hugo Chavez, he is trying to separate and break the Latin American countries and he is trying to make a war. The other problem is the economic situation in most Latin American countries This makes governments to fight for the food and the energy, I think if all South American countries join together and think about a solution, this problem could be end.
At this moment, the political situation is normal, but in any moment a new problem can start and the continent is not ready to solve it.
Alyssa B - Mrs. Bloom Period 1
ReplyDeleteAs Latin American countries began fighting and winning their independence, they next set upon the task of developing stable government systems. With the exception of Brazil, who became a monarchy, most countries in time became republics. However, no legitimate republics were developed until several years after the revolutions occurred because as Simon Bolívar stated in his “Jamaica Letter,” they had “not been permitted to exercise its functions.” Before the revolutions only certain men were allowed into the government fold and because of this the people were “enslaved by the government, by its nature or its vices [infringing] on and [usurping] the rights of the citizen or subject.” This in turn led to a repeated cycle of poor government practices so finally when revolution came around the people hadn’t the slightest idea of how to establish a government which could protect and meet their needs. Simon Bolívar was a Creole military officer who attempted the creation of Gran Columbia and from him we can learn that there were many barriers keeping Latin America from unifying politically as individual countries, let alone as a Gran Columbia.
Cuban writer and political leader Jose Marti would agree with Bolívar’s ideas that Latin America “can no longer be a nation of fluttering leaves . . . The trees must form ranks” to establish a solid government form. He saw the problems of Latin America as ones of an identity crisis. He declared “to govern well, one must attend closely to the reality of the place that is governed.” Latin America needed to look at their roots for help and create a political system based on their heritage, “the government must be born from the country.” Jose Marti challenged the new nations to look inward for help and not towards European examples. He saw the need to ban the nations together creating a unified state that could govern its peoples with the “spirit of the country.” The years after the revolutions were times of trial for all Latin American nations struggling to find their identity apart from their European founders and it was through blood and war that nations did discover their place in this world.
Stearns, Peter N. et al. World Civilizations. Longman: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011. Print.
Sierra, J. A. Our America. historyofcuba.com, Web. 14 March 2011.
Stephanie L.
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 3
As the Monroe Doctrine states “the political system of the allied powers is essentially different, in this respect, from that of Americas. This difference proceeds from that which exists in their respective governments… this whole nation is devoted.” As Europe was attempting to control the American government, it is true, and as the Monroe Doctrine said, both political systems were essentially different due to the independence with in America, and the devotion of the people. (Monroe).
Jose Marti, a Cuban writer and political leader, believes that “the government must be born from the country” and “to be governed well, one must attend closely to the reality of the place that is governed.” Even thought America was attempting to control Latin America, they needed to developed a political system that was based on them. And as the Cuban leader and political leader tried to create a unified state to govern the people with freedom and independence they still strongly struggled to govern themselves on their own.
Monroe Doctrine: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp
Sierra, J. A. Our America. historyofcuba.com, Web. 14 March 2011.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs Latin America gained their independence, there was the question of what type of government. Like most other countries in Latin America, Simon Bolivar established a republic government. He believed that "Nothing in our fundamental laws would have to be altered were we to adopt a legislative power similar to that held by the British Parliament" (Bolivar). Thus, reject Western Europe's form of government. This would make sense because of the years that Europe colonized and controlled their economy and resources.
ReplyDeleteUnlike the other Latin America countries, Brazil has a monarchy. The Portugal king fled to Brazil to get away from the Napoleonic Wars. When the king left Brazil to go back, he left his son, Pedro I, in charge of Brazil. Pedro I then set up an independent kingdom making him the ruler of Brazil. He, however, did not change the social structure and slavery was still around. But "the Brazilian government has been trying to make the world believe that slavery has ended in Brazil" (Nabuco).
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819bolivar.html
http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/slatta/hi216/documents/slavery/nabuco.htm
Melanie Locke
ReplyDeleteMrs Bloom
Period 1
As Latin America's revolution came to an end, the political future of the area was up in the air. With a democratic government as the inspiration behind the revolution, the lack of democracy that followed was a failure on Latin America's part. As Latin America had been focusing so much on winning their revolution, they were not prepared for when they achieved their goal. They did not have the organization to form a democratic government and in many areas, whoever was the most organized took control, and many of whom took control were not democratic at all but were dictators. Francisco Bilbao states that, for dictators, "the conquest of power [was] the supreme goal". As Fransisco Bilbao embodies the thoughts and ideas of a dictator, ready to take over the susceptible Latin American government it is easy to see how many of the countries in Latin America wound up under the pressure of a dictator. While the revolution was originally about the fight for democracy, and the fight for the people, it failed when democratic governments didn't form in the wake of the revolution.
With dictators attempting to take over the government, and figures like Simon de Bolivar in his message to the Congress of Angostura in 1819 promoting forms of government mimicking the British parliament, the countries in Latin America were in a state of inner turmoil. A revolution that had begun as a fight for freedom and democracy ended in a lack of organization for a proper government and a conflict over who would take control. Bolivar promoted a government similar to England. He proposed that with “an executive power in the person of a president chosen by the people or their representatives, and [there] will have [been] taken a great step toward national happiness. No matter what citizen occupies this office, he will be aided by the Constitution, and therein being authorized to do good, he can do no harm, because his ministers will cooperate with him only insofar as he abides by the law.” Bolivar’s theory is most similar to the originally intended democracy.
Kelsey Gallegos
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Mrs. Bloom
Following the Models of other societies and their revolts, Latin America stood up against their current system. With the new independence Latin America gained was the question of what type of government that should be implemented. Leaders in Mexico, wanting to follow western example, established a monarchy. The monarchy, however, was short-lived. They soon became a republic, much like most other Latin American countries would become. Brazil on the other hand maintained a Monarchy. Chilean politician, Francisco Bilbao writes, “Why, the government party is perpetuated in office, and the popular will is flouted and swindled. But "the form has been preserved," and long live free elections!”Many people in this era agreed with Francisco and resented the monarch.
Although many leaders thought that the western system was best, they were skeptical to whether or not the population would agree. Cuban writer and political leader, Jose Marti, was very unconvinced of the European models saying, “the government must be born from the country.” Even though his perspective may have been a bit biased because of his loyalty to his country, its very accurate to what the general population was thinking at the time.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteZita Wendler
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 1
Simon Bolivar fought (and wrote) for change in the Latin American political system by drawing attention to the wrong-doings being brought upon the people of the countries by the Europeans. The document Message to the Congress of Angostura sheds light upon what could, and should, be changed in the government for the Latin Americans, such as the lack of proper morals under which the then-current government was experiencing. Bolivar suggests a government more closely resembling that of the British: "Nothing in our fundamental laws would have to be altered were we to adopt a legislative power similar to that held by the British Parliament." Bolivar also conveys such points in writings like Manifesto to the Nations of the World.
In this document, Bolivar continues to rally for a new form of government, addressing the wrong-doings if "their oppressors" directly. He tells the public of how necessary it is for them to be educated; to avoid "ignorance and superstition." His points throughout this document and others continue to draw attention to the oppression the Latin American Countries faced in this era, as we have recently learned about in AP World.
Francisco Bilbao, a liberal, Chilean politician, reviews the military dictatorships, or caudillos, and the justifications for them in his short essay, “America In Danger.” Bilbao criticizes the justifications by mocking them. Bilbao states that “conquest of power is the supreme goal” of dictators in control of Latin America. He then outlines how the corrupt leaders manipulate any democratic reforms to fit their needs to have complete power. As we’ve learned from our class work and reading, the caudillos posed as reformers to help all; however, there was mass nepotism and basic human rights were taken away. While this document does support what we have learned, the point of view is also slightly skewed. It is important to note that Bilbao was a liberal politician, therefore, his viewpoints towards the caudillos tend to be more aggressive and sarcastic.
ReplyDeleteSimón de Bolívar, one of the most famous Latin American political leaders analyzes the effectiveness of North American democracy in his “Message to the Congress of Angostura.” This document reveals that Simon de Bolivar believes that “o form of government is so weak as the democratic.” Bolivar discusses how to strengthen the democratic system in a way that would fit for Latin America. Bolivar’s critique of democracy was a bit surprising simply because he was responsible for a great deal of reform in Latin America, that was heavily influenced by “North America” or the American Revolution. Bolivar is similar to Bilbao in the sense that their point of view is skewed toward reform and its benefits, not analyzing consequences.
Jennifer B. Bloom 1st period: Political
ReplyDeleteThe Monroe Doctrine expressed in one of President Monroe’s annual messages to Congress in 1823 to advise the United States and Europe to stay out of international affairs. It states, “we should consider any attempt on their part to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety” (Monroe Doctrine). This statement reveals to us that any European attempt at colonizing the Americas would be frowned upon and considered an unfriendly act. This reinforces the idea in our textbook from chapter 25 which also says that the United States wanted Britain to not interfere with the Americas culturally, politically, socially, or economically. However, Great Britain decided to start trading illegally with Latin America, thus causing Latin America to become solely dependent on foreign markets and trade. The message of the Monroe Doctrine is heavily influenced by its political writers because they are from the United States and don’t want to see Britain gaining more power so they tried to keep all of Europe away from the Americas. If it had been written from a British political leader the message would have been a lot different.
Monroe Doctrine: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
In Thomas Jefferson’s response to the Monroe Doctrine he agrees with Monroe that the U.S. should not get involved in foreign affairs, but Jefferson focuses more on Britain and less on Latin America. “Keeping out of our land all foreign powers, of never permitting those of Europe to intermeddle with the affairs of our nations” (Jefferson’s Response). Jefferson testifies to the idea that Britain is the most powerful country in the world and could end up destroying the Americas if it really wanted too. This adds to my understanding that the U.S. didn’t want to stay out of international affairs as much as they were focused on not fighting with Britain. Jefferson knew, “Great Britain is the nation which can do us the most harm of any one” (Jefferson’s response). This also supports the idea in our book that Britain was the most powerful nation at this time. The fact that Jefferson is from the United States affects his point of view because he knows Britain is powerful so if anything he wants to be on their side and certainly not against them. He believes that if they aren’t entangled with Europe the U.S. will be better off politically, socially, and economically.
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/thomas.htm Thomas Jefferson’s comments on the Monroe Doctrine’s “imperial” implications
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePolitical:
ReplyDeleteTrenton Tosetti bloom 5th Period
The political systems of the modern era for Latin America were very shaky. The region experienced revolutions in Argentina, Mexico, Chile Brazil and more. The caudillos then began to assume control of their various regions whenever they felt a change was necessary. This led to military coup after military coup and left Latin America at a huge political disadvantage that can still be seen today. In the Jamaica Letter by Simon Bolivar he clearly states, “I look upon the present state of America as similar to that of Rome after its fall. Each part of Rome adopted a political system comforting to its interest…” This clearly shows that Latin America was in a decline politically.
I learned a lot from this primary source. It revealed to me how similar Latin American’s demise was to mighty Rome’s. It reinforces the textbook because it shows that the caudillos really were assuming control of land through military coups and Latin America was in trouble. Simon Bolivar wanted a revolution so this passage might be an over reaction to how bad the problems really were. He wanted Latin America to sound pathetic so a revolution would be very appealing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMelissa S
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Political
Jose Marti, a Cuban political leader, states that Latin American countries must “overcome the crushing weight of [their] past[s]” He believes that these countries need to break away from any foreign influence, and create a political system for themselves. Europe “delayed the advent of a logical form of government” and now it is time to “conquer [Latin American] liberty”. He encouraged the nations to govern from within the countries because knowledge of the country “is the only way of freeing it from tyranny”. The governors must “know the country and govern it” accordingly. Marti states this is the only way for the government to not become corrupt.
Jose Marti’s would agree with the Monroe Doctrine because Latin American countries are “not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers”. These countries have their own form of government and will no longer be influenced or colonized by neighboring countries because it is “dangerous to [their] peace and safety” President Monroe is advising the United States and Europe to stay put of Latin American affairs. He states “[Latin American countries] have not interfered and shall not interfere”, therefore America and Europe should do the same. If these countries continue to “extend their political system to any portion of either continent they will [endanger] our peace and happiness”. These two primary documents help to explain the political issues of Latin American countries.
Sierra, J. A. Our America. historyofcuba.com, Web. 14 March 2011.
Monroe Doctrine:
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php?flash=true&page=transcript&doc=23&title=Transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29
Although Latin America was movig away from a Monarchy to a Republic, Politics were unsteady and left the reigon divided."Mexican elites, earlier united in opposition to the revolutionary challenges from below, split over ideological issues. Former allies became bitter opponents. A collective national identity remained elusive." (http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/pcp_myhistorylab_worldhistory_1_master/37/9709/2485651.cw/index.html). The heavy class division in Mexico and all of Latin America made it extremley difficult for a Republic to work well, because there were so many conflicting ideas at such large extremes.
ReplyDelete"After independence, Latin America's fledgling republics all struggled with issues of factionalism, conspiracies, and the threat of revolution" (http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/pcp_myhistorylab_worldhistory_1_master/37/9709/2485657.cw/index.html). Throughout Latin American history, the political structure has been forever troubled by the large amount of revolutions internally. Reform seldom came peacefully in this reigon and it almost became custom to begin a revolution if anyone wanted independence in this area. the Republic government in this area had no time to work because of the constant threat of revolution.
Comment: Trenton Tosetti
ReplyDeleteI agree with Ian on how any country that just starts out is going to have some hard inital problems. He really made some excellent points in his post. God Job Ian.
Latin American countries slowly gained independence and grew as their own nations. But the process was tough. It didn’t happen overnight. “We are still in a position lower than slavery, and therefore it is more difficult for us to rise to the enjoyment of freedom…”(Bolivar) is seen in the Jamaica Letter. This gives us an idea of how hard it was to start up a new country. The new lands had no idea what they were doing. They had no enjoyment because they spent too much time worrying about the way their government would be run. Bolivar later states, “States are slaves because of either the nature of the misuse of their constitutions; a people is therefore enslaved when the government, by its nature or its vices infringes on and usurps the rights of the citizen or subject (Bolivar).” This statement gives us the idea that, maybe, the new Latin American countries didn’t put enough effort into their constitutions and there are ways to weasel around the laws to hurt the country.
ReplyDeleteMany areas around Latin America were being pushed around to set up their political systems. Countries in South America were the most influenced. This could go along with Western Intervention as well, but I decided to put it in this category. “They (revolutions for independence) were the same throughout America, and sprang from the same source, namely, the progress of European ideas (Sarmiento).” The new countries were lost in how to set up their government, so the European countries came in with “a helping hand.” But little did the new lands know that Europe was trying to gain some power in those lands for resources.
Sources cited:
http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/bakewell/texts/jamaica-letter.html
Mrs. Bloom, Period 1
ReplyDelete“Sunday Afternoon in Alameda Park” by Diego Rivera, Textbook pg.586
This image is of Benito Juarez, an Indian from southern Mexico who as president began to implement reforms that reflected a “new liberal vision of a secular society” that promoted economic, social, and ultimately political change and growth. In a liberal revolt called La Reforma, a series of laws were integrated into a new constitution as the basis for this new vision of society. Juarez’s goals were to create a nation of independent farmers who would all be equals yet was met with an outraged church and traditionalist population. His continued reforms and his nationalist position firmly against foreign intervention “had identified liberalism with nationalism in Mexico and made Juarez a symbol of the nation”. Juarez also pushed for implementing a monarchy with a strong central government and truly only wanted Mexico to have a strong and stable central government.
This painting depicts his power and influence simply by his larger body size than anyone else in the image and the fact that he is on the top of the pyramid. Juarez in this painting looks of mixed race which may have helped him in campaigning because of his middle to high social stature. He is surrounded by his people in Mexico and even a white, European king to the left. Juarez was a symbol of Mexican sovereignty and independence, and although not completely successful, influential in getting ideas and reform movements to at least be heard and attempted.
Mrs. Bloom, Period 1
ReplyDeleteBolivar’s “Jamaica Letter” (1815), Textbook pg. 599
Simon Bolivar was known as “The Liberator” because of his determination to explore Hispanic heritage and confront the political problems arising with the continued interference from Europeans. He held campaigns for independence throughout the late 1700s and early 1800s, evaluating Latin America’s situation and outlining his “vision for the future for its various parts”. Bolivar condensed and organized his ideas and claims into his “Jamaica Letter”. In his letter, Bolivar brings forth the complaints of the Latin Americans against Spanish rule that had never had the chance to surface under the Spanish rulers. He highlighted the challenge it was to take on the task of social, economic, and most importantly political liberation.
By advocating a brand new republican form of government and rejecting a monarchy, Bolivar did not win great acceptance at first. He warned against the dangers of federalism and democracies that could lead to destructive dictatorships. Bolivar states “we [must] assert these rights, and at the same time we must defend ourselves against the invaders”. Bolivar realizes that Jamaica probably could not make it on their own if they were to be strictly cut off from Europe immediately. Their goal was independence with little interaction between the natives and Spanish. Bolivar’s letter was inspiring to many Latin American political leaders as seen when they too began to advocate “progress” and attempted to bring their own countries closer to independence and democracy.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJake G.
ReplyDeleteBloom Per 1
There was much corruption within Latin American countries during the late 19th century as many revolutions were taking place, and new forms of governments were being crafted and tested in these new independent nations. Schooling began to become regular, improving the quality of the politics and leaders at the time. Every country will be “composed of educated and uneducated sectors;” majority of the uneducated live corrupt lives and resolve their issues with violence, and the educated “all want to be well-governed” (Marti). More universities began to emerge providing more education opportunity for a larger population. Marti continues to articulate about how the nations need to work together as a whole, to achieve what they want and sustain their independence. His point of view is clear in which he believes everyone must work together without “racial hatred” and corruption to eliminate disorder and result in a successful productive government (Marti).
The corruption and struggle for developing a strong government is mentioned in Simon Bolivar’s message to the Congress of Angostora. Their “quest for liberty [was] now even more difficult” to accomplish and have been treated poorly almost like slaves by the foreign nations. He proposed that they should imitate the British parliament because they “possess all the authority properly appertaining to a sovereign” (Bolivar). He suggests the idea of having a democratic system. If they have an “executive power in the person of a president chosen by the people” they will be taking a “great step toward national happiness” (Bolivar). This speech illustrates the type of intervention and development the Latin American nations all underwent during their revolutions.
Gracie Ventimiglia
ReplyDeletePeriod 6 Mrs. Bloom
"Respect for law and authority is lost, and only force holds sway, proclaiming its triumph to be that of liberty and justice." As shown from the quote, Latin American countries were struggling to maintain their independence and peace between the people. The governments in Latin America were lacking experience and were finding difficulty controling their territory. As if the governments weren't already troubled, the people of these nations put more pressure by starting revolutions and rebellions. Although the revolutions did not help develope these countries at the time, I think it is important for the people to revolt against the government. Hopefully the revolutions could lead to some reforms and help shape the government in a better, more democratic government.
Neighboring countries, former allies, caused more problems as they began to invade and intangle in Latin Americas politics and economics. "From the excessive tension of wills, from the elementary state of culture, from the perpetual unrest of life, from the harshness of the industrial struggle, anarchy and violence will be born in the future." It was inevitable that there would be disputes because of the cultural differences between the Latin American countries.
Works Cited:
Halsall, Paul. "Modern History Sourcebook: Francisco Garcia Calderón: "Imperialism of Decadence", 1913." FORDHAM.EDU. July 1998. Web. 16 Mar. 2011.
Hjalte Durocher
ReplyDeleteBloom Pd. 1
Latin America was a region of great political tumult throughout the nineteenth century. As many people began to pick up the torches of the enlightenment and move for political independence from the Iberian colonizers, it was only the beginning to centuries of political division and strife. Internal divisions among the traditionally powerful upper white classes and the weaker but more populous lower classes resulted in years of chaos before any systems resembling the democratic model took root. Often, regional leaders or “caudillos,” such as Echenique of Peru, roused the local populations within countries to revolution, citing the inevitable instability and ineffectiveness of whatever rulers held power; however, with each revolution came new rulers incapable of ruling. In Echenique's memoirs, he describes his anger at the Peruvian government, officials of which stated that they would shoot an upstart rebel “five hundred times to stop revolutions.” He goes on to amass and support a revolution which topples the standing government, for which the revolutionaries “named [him] mayor and military commander of Lima.” He goes on to praise his own rule as mayor of Lima, however, his document is of course biased towards revealing a more likeable version of himself.
Simon Bolivar's “Message to the Congress of Angostura” outlines the views of many of those within Latin America who supported the creation of a strong parliamentary or democratic system such as the United States' or Britain's. Inspired by the Enlightenment ideas of their time, they believed “that proper morals, and not force, are the bases of law; and that to practice justice is to practice liberty.“ The clash between these and the seated powers of the former colonial aristocracy and land-owning white elites often formed the basis of political instability and conflict which kept the Latin American nations from uniting.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819bolivar.html
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/wps/media/objects/2426/2484749/chap_assets/documents/doc23_3.html
Josh Conroy
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom period 5
In Brazil the revolution was eminent. With revolutions happening all throughout Latin America Pedro was sure that Brazil was on the verge of the next revolution. Pedro received word from the Portuguese parliament that they would limit his power. On September 3, 1822 he announced "By my blood, by my honor, and by God: I will make Brazil free." (Pedro1) “[t]earing the Portuguese blue and white insignia from his uniform”. Brazilian independence was eventually recognized by Portugal and on August 29, 1825 a treaty was signed to officially declare Brazil an independent state. Dom Pedro was reigned emperor for nine years.
With internal political skirmishes, fighting with neighboring countries, and many other problems. Brazil was still a new state, and just like all of the newly independent sates in Latin America they still had problems to work through. It is a reoccurring theme throughout this time of revolutions in Latin America that these new countries have many internal problems such as politics, and war amongst neighboring states.
Stearns, Peter N. et al. World Civilizations. Longman: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011. Print.
http://gosouthamerica.about.com/od/brahistory/qt/IndependenceDay.htm
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJames Maroney
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 5
The political systems in Latin America underwent a major reform during this period of time. Spain and Portugal had successfully colonized much of the land within Latin America and were oppressive leaders that saw the natives as savages who must be controlled. Instead of simply coexisting with the natives, they decided to rule them in order to gain complete access to the valuable exports that originated from Latin America. The Latin American Revolution, inspired by past American and French Revolutions, and led by Simon Bolivar, Commander of the Army of the North, were “sent to destroy the Spaniards, to protect Americans, and to reestablish the republican governments that formed the Federation of Venezuela.” (Bolivar 115) This phrase was stated by Bolivar as Decree of War to the Death. Bolivar was one of the first to initiate major steps that began the Latin American Revolution. Known as the liberator of Venezuela, he was vital in the struggle for independence in South America.
To prevent a reoccurrence of events after the Europeans had left America, the United States drafted the Monroe Doctrine that states (In Ben Franklin’s words) “never entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe, never suffer Europe to intermeddle with cis-Atlantic affairs. America, North and South, has a set of interests distinct from those of Europe.” (Franklin, Letters to President Monroe) With the doctrine in place, the newly formed states in South America had time to reform their governmental values and ideas. The Monroe Doctrine is appealing to those of us it applies to, which shows in Benjamin Franklin’s writing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMolly H.
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 3
Revolutions are exciting and thrilling for those who are choosing to rebel. They often look appealing and end up sparking revolutions in other countries. The revolutions stirred up across the world, especially in France, eventually led Latin America to make movements toward independence. The natives, according to Bolivar were "nonexistent" meaning they had no say in politics and we "in a position lower tan slavery". Simon Bolivar was a large supporter for the revolutions in the Americas. He was in favor for a Republic rather than a monarchy. He has a biast in his acticle. This article portrays the pressure from the monarchs but how there are options of getting out of their control.
Bolivar's ideas are similar to the gist of the Monroe Doctrine. The Monroe Doctrine basically is removing themselves as "not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers". Any unfriendly activity would result in war. However, the Monroe Doctrine is more center around the U.S. while Bolivar was more concerned with Latin America. The colonies and countries in the Americas were slowly moving away from European influence.
Tyler Woolsey Period 6
ReplyDeleteAs colonies of European powers continued to expand farther and farther into the new world, the colonists became more and more inclined to revolt. The fact that these people were paying taxes to ruthless monarchs several thousands miles away caused an uproar. "Only runts whose growth was stunted will lack the necessary valor, for those who have no faith in their land are like men born prematurely. Having no valor themselves, they deny that other men do. Their puny arms, with bracelets and painted nails, the arms of Madrid or of Paris, cannot manage the lofty tree and so they say the tree cannot be climbed" (Marti). Revolution was inevitable. What made the situation worse for the European powers is that once one revolution happened, a domino effect of revolting colonists would occur. The European powers were left helpless as other political unrest was happening in Europe at the time, including the conquest of Napoleon.
Although the colonists of the time would argue it, these mass revolutions in Latin America did little good for the new independent nations. Lack of political leadership as well as the lack of trade or economic systems caused the new countries very hard times that would continue into the 20th century and beyond. "However, with military victory won, Bolivar now faced myriad political conflicts. Opponents accused him of dictatorial excesses and tried to assassinate him. His vision of a united Latin America quickly crumbled" (Bolivar).
Ian Roche Mrs. Bloom P.6
ReplyDeleteThe political situation in Latin America was rough at this time. All of these countries had just gained their independence and were starting fresh. Any country that is starting fresh has many troubles. This was no different for the Latin American countries. “These are not times for going to bed in a sleeping cap, but rather, like Juan de Castellanos' men, with our weapons for a pillow, weapons of the mind, which vanquish all others. Trenches of ideas are worth more than trenches of stone.” These lines just show how the author also believes that Latin America was in need of a better political system. He and the book said essentially the same thing. However, the author has a little more point of view than the book. This author was a native and wanted his country to rise to the top. Jose Marti just wanted what was best for his home country.
I also used the picture of the sacrifice of the European man. This showed the freedom of these colonies. The picture shows how the natives have gained lots of control back and that they have kicked out most of the Europeans. It also shows that the Europeans are still somewhat of a problem, they still have to kill them. While this does agree with the book on how Latin America needed many reforms to deal with the Europeans. The document is quite biased. It shows a helpless band of Europeans, which wasn’t the case everywhere. The Europeans still had military superiority over the Latin Americans. Also, the artist would want to glorify his own nation. These documents both show that Latin America was on the right path but was just getting started.
Joe V
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 1
The political system of Latin America was often based on European influence, caudillos, centralist governments, and federalist governments. The federalist governments shared liberal ideas and wanted regional governing and republic countries. Jose Marti of Mexico had the idea that a free federalist government was the best and stated “in what patria can a man take greater pride than in our long-suffering republics of America?” Many of these federalist republics were run by caudillos due to the fact that caudillos ruled regional governments. The centralist governments shared conservative values and they wanted to create a strong central political system. Santa Anna of Mexico was a centralist leader and he was the most well known and prominent Mexican leader of all time.
Europeans often controlled Latin American countries through their extended monarchies. Before Brazil was independent it was governed by Pedro I, the son of the Portuguese king Joao VI. European political influence was a main contributing factor to the revolutionary wars of many Latin American countries. After a Latin American country gained its independence, it would be run by caudillos and regional governments after the downfall of the central government. An example of this is the Argentine Revolution. Domingo F. Sarmiento in Life in the Argentine said, “The cities overcame the Spaniards, and were in their turn overcome by the country districts.” All of these political systems were present in Latin America, but as time progressed, they mostly gave way to republics and democratic governments.
Domingo F. Sarmiento, Life in the Argentine excerpt, page 589
Sierra, J. A. Our America. historyofcuba.com, Web. 14 March 2011.
Luke Chamberlain
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 6
After the independence movement in Latin America tensions were high and everyone wondered what the next step to freedom was. Many countries had to develop a stable government. Republics were chosen by many of these states because they were not ready for a democracy. However in Brazil a dictatorship was formed after the revolution. Many of the other states were on the edge of falling into a dictatorship.
As several dictators stared to come to power, Simon Bolivar stepped up and defend the revolutions work. Bolivar tried to make all the countries of latin america one. All simon wanted was to recognize and uphold the rights of the individual. But as his plan began to fall Bolivar grabbed a little bit of what he wanted and made himself dictator of Venezuela.
http://wps.pearsoncustom.com/pcp_myhistorylab_worldhistory_1_master/37/9707/2485009.cw/index.html
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103542492
Emilee Greager
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 1
During this era Latin America was struggling with its political structure, yet with the pressure of Enlightenment thinkers, the neighboring revolutions, and the reformation that followed them, political restructure should have been expected.
Latin America, previously controlled by violent dictators and monarchs, experienced a political change spurred by leaders like Simon Bolivar and Jose Marti. Simon Bolivar wrote in his “Bolivian Constitution” that the reformed politicians should beware “tyranny and anarchy” who form a “vast ocean of oppression”. He explains that monarchies and dictatorships were constantly attempting to “sink” a “tiny island of freedom” (Bolivar 54) A Cuban political influence, Jose Marti, explains that “the spirit of the government must be the spirit of the country” and the country is comprised of people who strive to be equals amongst each other. To achieve this, most Latin American countries accepted a democracy which led to political stability.
http://www.historyofcuba.com/history/marti/America.htm
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=103542492
Carly Badger, Mrs. Bloom, Period 6
ReplyDeleteAs Latin American countries began claiming their independence from European powers they were left with one question “How are we going to rule ourselves?” Most Nations with the exception of Brazil became Republics. One such nation was Mexico, which wrote the Iguala de la Independencia or the plan of Igula. The plan of Igula was written on February 24, 1821, based on French, Spanish and the United States documents for basic civil rights. The plan of Igula guarantees three basic rights; "[1] Catholicism as Mexico’s sole religion, [2] absolute independence from Spain [3] and racial equality “ (Iguala).
However some found that these so called Republics would not work. As Simon Bolivar commented in Simon Bolivar on Constitutional Government, "[the government] has received powers not permitted in other governments"(Bolivar). He said that although "no other object is as important to a citizen as the election of his legislators, magistrates...{it is} easy to concede to the immediate representatives of the people" (Bolivar). The textbook agrees with these statements made by Simon Bolivar. For the textbook also stated that Bolivar announced that "America is ungovernable"(Chapter 25).
Online textbook: http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_stearns_wrldcivil_6_AP/142/36436/9327812.cw/index.html
Plan of Iguala: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?sid=ec4dcf04-52f5-4c2c-887e-db985a56e328%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=127&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=mih&AN=39012982
On Constitutional Government (early 19th c.) Simon Bolivar: http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MEDIA_1/history/MHL/WW/documents/Simon_Bolivar_on_Constitutional_Government.html
Sam K
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom, Per. 3
The first step for Latin America, after gaining its independence, was to form a government. With the exception of Brazil, most of the countries formed some kind of republic. Simon Bolívar attempted to create a Gran Columbia, but failed in the end because of divisions that wouldn’t allow a unified Latin America. He believed that his people had been “enslaved by the government, by its nature or its vices…”
Brazil remained a monarchy because the son of the Portuguese king had stayed behind when the rest of his family returned to Portugal. Pedro I set up an independent kingdom and left things very close to what they had been. This created unrest among the masses along with the continued practice of slavery.
Hanna S.
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 1
Theme: Political
Naturally, massive expanses of new land are subjected to disputes over jurisdiction methods between political factions and contrasting ideology; therefore, it is expected for Latin America to experience the political fragmentation that it did. As the diffusion of revolutionary systems and enlightenment ideology occurred, regional internal disputes and colonial rebellion grew more anxious for political change. Division of social hierarchy in Latin America became more distinct, and those class divisions caused drastic differences to political approach-furthering the political disorganization among conservative centralists and liberal federalists. But once the church lost influence, liberals took over conservative dominance-leading to an independence movement led by Simon Bolivar. Bolivar believed that “America was denied not only its freedom but even an active and effective tyranny...” and he claims in his “Letter of Jamaica” that the only way to achieve social, economic, and (especially) political liberation is to establish a republican form of government rather than a monarchy. Bolivar even suggested the dangers of popular democracy and federalism as possible generators of dictatorship. Instead, Bolivar proposed “to adopt a legislative power similar to that held by the British Parliament” (in his “Message to the Congress of Angostura”) that would adapt as a neutral power and suppress political rivalry.
Political unification was a necessity for Latin America; however, geographical barriers and class divisions were challenges that prevented such unity under Simon Bolivar (his reformation ideas were also not completely accepted). Unfortunately, the lack of political organization led to extensive tension, widespread disputes among leaders, and eventually disrupted trade and built foundations for civil wars. This tumultuous atmosphere among Latin America left many countries susceptible to forced (corrupt) authoritarian leadership, ultimately creating patterns of resentment throughout the nineteenth century.
Simon Bolivar, “Jamaica Letter” excerpt, pages 588-589 textbook
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1819bolivar.html
Dakota Green
ReplyDeleteMrs. Bloom
Period:06
Political tensions were high in Latin America during this time. Oppression from foreign leaders and lack of economic control was frustrating. The “governments” established in the Latin American nations were small and weak. With the success of revolutions occurring in the United States and France, the idea was appealing to these countries; however it was much more complex. Without European involvement, there was very little trade and the economies of these countries would plummet quickly. Socially, the class divisions were so drastic unity seemed almost impossible. However, there was optimism that if successful, these “new” nations would “surpass the most democratic of governments” (Bolivar).
With the conflict of the Peninsular War, attention was focused elsewhere and a revolution appeared almost easy. Through careful decisions of leaders in Latin America, revolutions began to happen rapidly. Although Brazil turned to Monarchy, most countries were suitable Independent Republics. However, with such a lack of substantial government in the past, these countries were unable to concretely institute a government. In many cases, caudillos gained control, which established even stricter class divisions and a weakening economy. As time passed, citizens realized “hometowns that are still strangers to one another must hurry to become acquainted” (Marti). As countries began to unite and use internal influences rather than focusing on western ideas, strong Independent States began to immerge out of Latin America.
Sources:
1.Bolivar, Simon. "The Constitutional System." Simon Bolivar on Constitutional Government. Pearson Education Inc. Web. 16 Mar. 2011. .
2. Sierra, Jerry A. "Jose Marti's Our America." Cuban History Begins Here. Web. 17 Mar. 2011. .
Bloom
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Latin America’s struggle for independence is evident in the memoirs of Peruvian Coudillo, Echenique. Coudillos were regional leaders who were successful in uniting populations against the government despite the government’s claims that it would resist “ five hundred times to stop revolutions.” The memoirs confirm the textbook’s claim that Latin America endured immense struggle to gain independence. Eventually, persistence paid off and Latin America was free, but as is the case at the end of all revolutions, a question arose: what now? Latin America began a new struggle of establishing an effective political system. Moderate political chaos ensued as disorganized internal power struggles began. “The conquest of power [was] the supreme goal” during this time period. While white aristocrats wanted to maintain what had traditionally been their control, the Enlightenment movement was affecting more and more people and creating a force of resistance to tradition. The Message to the Congress of Angostura supported the creation of a government that had tendencies towards democracy. Enlightenment ideas inspired the author of the message to suggest that Latin America “[base] law” on “proper morals, and not force.” To be truly free, the message suggests that the new government must “practice justice.” While freedom was once the main focus of Latin America, uniting now became a crucial issue. An inability to unite lead to a period of political strife amongst the newly independent population.
"Modern History Sourcebook: Simón De Bolívar: Message to the Congress of Angostura, 1819." FORDHAM.EDU. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
"Reflections on Revolutions." Web. 15 Mar. 2011.
KJ S. – Period 6
ReplyDeletePolitically Unstable
The political standpoint of Latin America during this period, following Industrialization, imperialism, and colonialism, appeared to be unstable in attempt to form on its own. Rebellion and independence was a common theme due to the feelings of suppression that nations such as Argentina and Jamaica felt under European powers, and Simon Bolivar of Jamaica described certain aspects of life under Western power and demonstrates the need for a change: “we are still in a position lower than slavery...we have been harassed by a conduct which has not only deprived us of our rights but has kept us in a sort of permanent infancy with regard to public affairs” (Bolivar). Bolivar’s point of view may be biased as a man who did nothing but support the causes of independence, earning him the nickname “The Liberator”, and his views expressed the desire of many nations during the period to gain independence and overthrow their current European monarchs. The current conditions under these monarchs had them producing raw materials such as “indigo, grain, coffee, sugar cane, cacao, and cotton”, but they had no say in the nation’s development. They wanted to gain independence to obtain more rights and to produce more growth for themselves.
The course of action that most nations chose to take was rebellion in pursuit of independence and a republican government. As described by Domingo F. Sarmiento in Life in Argentina, the process of independence and a republican government was composed of two parts: “first, a civilized warfare of the cities against Spain; second, a war against the cities on the part of the country chieftains with the view of shaking off all political subjugation and satisfying their hatred of civilization” (Sarmiento). He probably has a well formed opinion of what occurs during these revolutions due to his first hand experience with them. Political rule was extremely unstable in this era due to the clashing of ideas and diversities of the nations being ruled over: centralists opposed federalists and revolutions tended to continue even after gaining independence from Europe. These internal clashes within nations were over specific republican ideals, such as the amount of power the government should have and whether or not the church should be involved. Latin American nations found it difficult to establish themselves in political stability while attempting to gain independence in transition from a monarch to a republican government, and the truth is that they remained unstable and revolutions continued after independence was gained.
Textbook: pg. 588 Simon Bolivar’s “Jamaica Letter”
Textbook: pg. 589 Domingo F. Sarmiento’s Life in Argentina
David Vash:
ReplyDeleteThe Spanish monarchy found and funded the exploration of the new world. The Spanish government that was a monarchy at the time (today that would be considered a dictatorship) settled in the southern part of the modern day United States and Caribbean. They established their government and had the people and new comers to pay taxes. The old government, the monarchy, ruled South America for many years. The people wanted their own freedom; they did not want their taxes going to the wrong place. They believed that the taxes should be used on the people, and not the king and queen. This created a revolution all over the continent of South America. Finally the people of South America got what they had long desired, their independence. However the first few years of establishing a new government is not easy. Many of these small and individual states turned out to be dictatorships, and some became heavenly isolated from the outside world.
In the wake of a stream of early 18th century revolutions mimicking the American and French Revolutions, Latin America's struggle to develop a cohesive political identity for itself resulted in continued subjugation, eminent fragmentation, and eventual authoritarianism. In a vain attempt to evade the European doctrines of subjugation and social hierarchy, Latin American Revolutionaries made the fatal mistake to follow the European model of revolution. Additionally, although politically free, the economies of Latin America were inexorably linked to European manufacturing and remained under a de facto political control through economic manipulation.
ReplyDeleteIn Sarmineto's "Life in the Argentine," Latin America's failure was forecast from the start as all revolutionary fervent "sprang from the same source, namely, the progress of European ideas." The critical hypocrisy in attempted to evade European ideas by using European ideas set the stage for failure. Latin American had no hope. In the United States' Monroe Doctrine, President James Monroe offers the sobering proposition that Europe shall not make "any attempt on their part to extend their system" of political dominion over the newly freed Latin American nations. While legally free, their economic dependence on European manufacturing nullifies the significance of this document and stagnates and real ambitions for political progress.
World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition.
James, Monroe. "Transcript of Monroe Doctrine (1823)." Ourdocuments. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar 2011. .
Kevin S.
ReplyDeleteAmerica’s intervention in Latin America was growing. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 provided justification for their intervention which perhaps led to the later building of the Panama Canal during Roosevelt’s presidency in 1900. As Monroe claims that “The citizens of the United States cherish sentiments the most friendly in favor of the liberty and happiness of their fellow-men on that side of the Atlantic,” Francisco Garcia Calderón’s critique in “Imperialism of Decadence” depicts American imperialism as a “triumph of mediocrity.”
“Imperialism of Decadence” is a biased approach aimed at the potential dangers of imperialistic manifestations. As America’s political dominance was growing, Calderón’s essay rightly fears the end of Latin American independence.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/monroe.asp
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1913calderon.html
Arron Harms
ReplyDeleteBloom period 5
Once the Latin American countries managed to free themselves from their oppressive mother countries they often resorted to the same form of government as was in place in the first place. They worked back into exactly that which they sought to avoid: oppressive monarchies and dictatorships. Either the countries founded a new government following these general models or fell apart altogether. In the case of Brazil, they fell into a monarchy. This was very common in many places.
However, while most countries believed that these forms of government were best, a lot of them reformed their governments to fit more of a representative - constitutional stance. Simon Bolivar addressed his ideas on what the government should be like: Much like a democracy, but with equal representation of every party (source A). Many of these countries saw fit to change their governments to something that would satisfy the people more, and in the long run this was very beneficial.
While the LA nations were reforming their governments and rewriting their constitutions, they were incredibly vulnerable. Colonies were designed to be subordinate to European mother countries. They had underdeveloped governments, insufficient economies, and insignificant or no military force. They would be easily squashed should a European nation try to take them back. So, the U.S. issued the Monroe Doctrine. With the help of Great Britain the Monroe Doctrine protected Latin America and opened up trade to the world for raw materials. This protected Latin America, and industrialized nations benefited in that they now had more cheap materials to process.
http://media.pearsoncmg.com/ph/hss/SSA_SHARED_MEDIA_1/history/MHL/WW/documents/Simon_Bolivar_on_Constitutional_Government.html
World Civilizations: The Global Experience
Transcript of Monroe Doctrine (1823) - James Monroe
Jay Henderson
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 5
U.S. Intervention in Colombia and the succession of Panama
With the growing trade between the east and west coasts of the American Continent, the United States of America deemed it necessary for a new passageway to be constructed. In 1902, after President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Panama Canal Act, the dream of the channel was realized. When the nation found the location in Isthmus of Panama, American Contactors began to construct the most advanced engineering project of the time. Before progress could be made, however, the Union was forced to use political and military actions to free the region of Panama.
Panama, then the furthest north territory of Colombia, had always been an area of turmoil for the Colombian Government. After numerous conflicts with the Panamanian guerrillas, the Government was weary of American naval influence in the region. Still, the two governments signed the Hay-Herran Treaty, giving the US rights to build and own a canal in Panama.
When the Colombian Senate failed to ratify the treaty, the U.S. decided to back the Panamanian revolutionaries. In a controversial move, President Roosevelt implied to the rebels that the Navy would come to their aid if they were to stage a large revolt. Panama officially proclaimed its independence on November 3, 1903, and the USS Nashville arrived in the coastal waters to ensure their independence.
Roosevelt out maneuvered the Colombians by placing a military threat within striking distance.
Colombia had no other choice but to give Panama freedom or face full out war. The age old policy took on a new moniker: Gunboat Diplomacy. The naval presence ensured peaceful cooperation from the Colombians.
One of the first acts the Republic of Panama completed was the signing of the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty.
The bill stated: 1. “The United States guarantees and will maintain the independence of the Republic of Panama.” And 2. “The Republic of Panama grants to the United States in perpetuity the use, occupation and control of a zone of land and land under water for the construction maintenance, operation, sanitation and protection of said Canal...” This treaty, signed by representatives from America and Panama, gave the US rights to build and own a canal, in return for $10 million and an annual rental payment of $250,000 annually.
By November 14th, 17 countries recognized the Republic of Panama as a sovereign nation, including the US and France. And by 1921, so too had the Colombians.
"Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica, 2011. Web. 17 Mar. 2011.
World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition World Civilizations: The Global Experience, 6th Edition.
Mr.Macy pd.5 Benton Hardt and Kyle Surafka
ReplyDeletePolitical realm with life in Latin America has changed in a massive way. The political ways in Latin America are very unstable because of many disagreements within governments. People are out to fight for their freedom but haven’t come easily. The government is often corrupt which affects the nation politically. For example as Christian said the Venezuelan president is trying to split up the country and cause a war. This shows corruption because it is highly possible that he is doing this for gun and/or money. Instead of a government run by dictators, it would be far more beneficial for them to have a democratic style government. In the writings of Francisco Bilbao he said, "the conquest of power [was] the supreme goal." This specifically pertains to dealing with the dictators. If Latin America was able to focus on creating a democracy, the government would then be forced to focus on the people and perhaps, further prosper the country.
Jose Marti once said “to govern well, one must attend closely to the reality of the place that is governed.” Instead the government of Latin America isn’t attending to their people and what they want but to get their way in what they want for power.
Response to Dakota G.,
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with your argument that one of the key obstacles that prevented political unity was the extensive social class differences present in Latin America during this era. It never occurred to me before, but that idea makes a lot of sense and helps to explain why the United States emerged united and eventually rose to the status of a superpower while Latin America remained politically fragmented, weak, and subject to dictatorial governments. I also agree with your analysis that the Peninsular War between Spain and Portugal was a catalyst for revolution and helps to explain why there were so many revolutions in such a short time period.
Carly Badger
ReplyDeleteper 6
Responce to Molly H.
Molly, I loved your idea about the attraction that the Latin Americans would have to an idea such as revolution. I liked how you introduced this idea at the very beginning of the paragraph. This provides your paragraphs with a strong thesis, which you supported with hard evidence. You choose documents that were relevant to your claim that you made in your first sentence. In your second paragraph you made a good point that the Monroe Doctrine was more for the United States benefits than anything else. I would have to agree with this statement. You also spoke about how Bolivars argument being biast I had never really thought of that, and to be honest you do have a good point. I enjoyed reading your post.
Bonnie M.
ReplyDeleteper. 6
Response to Arron H.
Arron, you stated how the Latin American countries were vulnerable when they first became independent and thus resorted to a republic government. You also stated how they would be "squashed" by the European countries. The Monroe Doctrine definitely helped the LA countries even though the doctrine was made by the US. LA used to to help protect themselves, as the US did, in protecting their government and economy from European rule. You also stated that the Monroe Doctrine also helped boost their economy with trading raw materials. You brought up great points.
Alyssa Boyle Period 1 - Bloom
ReplyDeleteResponse to Bekah Romberg
Bekah, your analysis of Latin American politics matches exactly with what I found, which is that in Latin America they struggled to find a form of government that suited their needs while still withstanding corruption or manipulation. I believe that they had the right ideas however their execution was poor. In return corrupt officials came into power and exploited their governmental roles to suit only their needs and not the nation’s needs as a whole. I also found it important to take into consideration the point of view of the authors as well because many times their political background had a large influence on how they viewed the political issues of the time.
Ian R.
ReplyDeleteBloom P.6
Response to KJ S.
Overall you made many points that were extremely correct. It was very good how you talked about all the different positions on the revolutions and how this was most everyone’s choice. Also, you included a lot of great information on how Latin America got to this point. However, you could have added more information from the government’s side on if they really wanted to change or not. This was a great entry with few changes to make.
Stephanie Lownds & Erika Chado
ReplyDeleteMacy
Period 5
In Latin America the political views have stayed similar as seen from 1823 to 1959 through President James Monroe to Fidel Castro. Although these two men are different leaders to separate countries both talk about their views on the interfering countries. As said by Monroe in 1823 Spain and Portugal are “not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.” (Monroe). Later in 1959, Fidel Castro states that there are “principal problems confronting Latin American countries… who govern in their own selfish interest.” (Castro). So both political leaders would like their countries to be known as more than just a bystander.
In the 136 years between the two political leaders President James Monroe and Fidel Castro many of the political views stayed the same. As for Cuba today, it is a different story. Although the previous years influenced many changes in Cuba when Fidel Castro was in office, today there are many political issues. “The Cuban people have lost all personal freedom, lost all personal property and now occupy government-owned, rotting, worn-out buildings that are crumbling around them.” (Norton Jr.). In the past these Latin American countries had gained their freedom which is now lost, and the Cubans have “little pride in their country.” (Norton Jr.)
Works Cited
Jr., Frank Norton. "Cuba Today: Communism Is a Failure." Gainesvilletimes.com. Local News, Sports and Lifestyles from Northeast Georgia. Web. 23 Mar. 2011. .
Monroe Doctrine by President James Monroe
Speech – Fidel Castro
Jake Spicer
ReplyDeleteAlex Dlin
Colton Heidenfelder
Political life in Latin America is largely based on foreign intervention. Many different countries try to intervene with each other and this causes a lot of political unrest and in some serious cases, riots. As Castro once said in his famous 1959 speech, “Whatever differences might exist, principal problems confronting Latin America countries are similar. To a larger or lesser degree all feel the weight of exploitation and intervention of foreign interest.” From this quote we can take away that Castro felt very strongly that foreign intervention was taking over the Latin American way of life.
These problems still occur to this day as this causes concern with many citizens and revolutions by the hundreds. Revolutions can be good or bad for a society. Many of the revolutions in Latin America caused great violence but ended up changing things for the better. Castro states, “Our revolution has had widespread repercussions in all Latin American countries…American masses are witnessing a political-social-economic revolution which is rooting out historic ills and transforming country through revolutionary program.” Castro is saying that while he recognizes that his revolutions could cause problems, they will ultimately lead to a flourishing society. As stated by a news article, “Puerto Rico has been used as somewhat of a testing ground for issues like the development of the birth control pill, Monsanto's genetically modified crops and military exercises in ‘Vieques’." (eaglenews.org). This article tells us that while there have been many changes since the time of Castro, there are still revolutions happening and problems that need fixing.
Castro, Fidel speech part 1 1959
Castro, Fidel speech part 2 1959
www.eaglenews.org/news/latin-american-activism-subject-of-symposium-1.2519012
Stephen Hardy Ryan McClung
ReplyDeleteEver since Latin America was discovered, many nations have exploited there peoples and products. The leaders in charge have always takin advantage of the people. Political representatives are sometimes corrupt and set a bad name for their countries. "He was accused of keeping about 20,000 dissidents held captive and tortured under inhuman prison conditions every year (Castro)." Even though castro was a bad leader to his people and his country he knew how to exploit them so they would join together and fight for there independece. "Our revolution is a light house of hope casting its beem over our sister countries (Castros Speech)." Castro was able to unite not only his own people but also his sister countries. "We need to obtain support of sister peoples, strengthen ties between other countries of latin America, and increase cooperation on all levels."
Another country besides Cuba that show a lack of leadership is Columbia. Columbia has problems with drug distrobution to other countries because the political leaders arent doing much to stop it. This puts pressure on other countries such as the US and other Euorpen countries to do something about it.
Stephanie Lownds
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 3
Kelsey, I agree with everything you stated about the politics in Latin America during the 19th century. I really enjoyed how you explained how Latin America chose their government once freedom was gained. Also with the opinions that you quoted from Francisco Bilao, and Jose Marti I believe they supported your ideas on this topic as well. Lastly I would like to compliment you on your organization when writing, it never got confusing and I never got lost.
KJ S. Period 6 Bloom
ReplyDeleteResponse to Jake G. (Politics)
Jake, while the progress made by Latin American countries in the process of striving for independence, such as the development of an education system, is important, I think it is also too important to ignore the obstacles they faced that ultimately prevented them from becoming stable independent nations. Particularly in the attempts of Simon Bolivar to synthesize Gran Colombia, the wide diversity of the nations prevented them from uniting under on agreeable, stable government. Revolutions continued in regions including Mexico, and Latin America simply couldn’t unite politically, despite its progress in other aspects of society such as education. Overall, I agree with your comments on the positive gains made politically by Latin America, I just don’t think we can discuss its successes without discussing why it didn’t fulfill all of its political desires.
Rebekah R.
ReplyDeleteReply to Melissa S.
Melissa, I think that Marti's viewpoint is interesting and seems to be the views of a lot of the major political leaders in Latin America during this time. I think that it obviously shows that there was a desire to unify Latin America. It wasn't only Bolivar. I also think it is important to note that Marti was a political leader who understood politics, so I think that gives him more credibility. However he was trying to advocate for unification, so there could be a slight bias.
While the Monroe doctrine did say that the United States and Europe should stay our of Latin American Affairs, it's also important to mention that neither really did. Both, especially the United Sates (who issued it) got very involved in Latin America affairs. Although the doctrine said Latin American countries were "not to be considered as subjects for future colonization," they definitely were.
Bekah, I completely agree with your argument that the corruption within Latin America and all the outside influence that affected them made it very difficult for the countries to set up a formal, well-developed government. A good example that you included was the Caudillos, who gained power in Latin America but just brought more corruption into the political systems. I like how you included that Bilbao was a liberal politician because this fact does affect his arguments and view of the Caudillos.
ReplyDeleteKatie L
ReplyDeleteBloom P.6
Jake, I completely agree with your view on interventions. The formation of the Latin American countries was greatly dependent on foreign intervention. Even if this did start many revolts and riots, the countries were shaped under the influence of the Europeans, North Americans, and natives. Revolutions also helped discover some very important new leaders such as Simon Bolivar, who helped lead some of the Latin American countries to freedom. the pressures of foreign interventions that started the revolutions was just the first step in the Latin American's course to freedom.
Jake G.
ReplyDeleteIan, although the indigenous natives have begun to gain back their land and control from the Europeans, they are still having many struggles becoming a nation and establishing a government. I like how you pointed that out. Also, how although they have begun to gain power back the Europeans are still there and are still a significant issue at the time. They are wanting to intervene in the politics and economy as well as regain the new land. They are more than capable of intervening forcefully and that will always be in the worries of the Latin American nations.
Hanna S.
ReplyDeleteBloom Period 1
Theme: Political
Response to Dakota G.
Dakota, I agree, Latin America’s political structure was crippled by foreign involvement/leadership. Because Latin America was dependent on foreign capital investment, the economy could not remain stable; thus, Latin America was almost forced to remain under outside control. Also, I agree with your statement that before and after revolutionary changes and rebellions, political unity was near impossible due to the substantial gap between economic classes in the social hierarchy. Essentially, Latin America’s political fragmentation and economic instability went hand in hand as Europe forced its political leadership and market investments on newly emerging independent republic nations- ultimately impeding on progression.
By Jake Kerr/Dan Ullrich
ReplyDeleteThe political realm in Latin America is a complex one. It has been plagued by cover-ups, revolution, and aggression that has caused much frustration not just for local citizens, but for governments around the world. Fidel Castro states about his revolution, “our revolution has had widespread repercussion in all Latin American countries” (Castro). This demonstrates that the effects occurring in any particular country of Latin America are not just domestic; they affect sister or neighbor countries and governments as well.
Government corruption is also prominent. After the Tlatelolco Massacre, the government quickly came in to defend their constitutionality. Kate Doyle describes the following about the massacre. “More shocking still was the cover-up that kicked in as soon as the smoke cleared” (Doyle). The government initiated the attack on protestors that caused this massacre, but then quickly tried to avoid the blame. Regardless of the, “orderly meeting of the university grounds to protest the violation by police and troops of the university’s autonomy” (CIA), the troops fired upon protestors, leaving hundreds of people dead or wounded.
CIA document #5. GWU.edu.
Jesse
ReplyDeleteLatin American countries slowly gained independence and grew as their own but this did not happen over night or even in a couple days, this took years for Latin America to do. Like Christian said in his blog “We are still in a position lower than slavery, and therefore it is more difficult for us to rise to the enjoyment of freedom…” (Bolivar) is seen in the Jamaica Letter. This gives us an idea of how hard it was to start up a new country.
The new Latin American countries might not put enough effort into their constitutions and there are ways to weasel around the laws to hurt the country.
Many areas around Latin America were being pushed around to set up their political systems; countries in South America were the most influenced. Most countries in Latin America failed to set up a functional political system and now have many high ranking politics that make decisions for there country that are best for them and not their people.
Wikipedia. 2011. 3/24/11, .web
2011. 3/24/11, < http://macyworldlit.blogspot.com/2011/03/latin-america-unit-political-theme.html>.web
CIA document #5. GWU.edu.
Blog 2 Latin America Unit: POLITICAL Theme
ReplyDeleteKeenan Prouty Josh Conroy Mr.Macy Period
The Monroe Doctrine was a message to Europe explaining how poverty was brought on by Europe and how the us will dominate the affairs of Latin America. They will not interfere with the Latin American colonies or they will be killed. But the Monroe Doctrine also stated that the united states we not allowed to interfere with European countries. The doctrine addressed many political issues because many people agreed and dis agreed. As soon as European countries found out about the Monroe doctrine they were very upset.
When Europe found out about the Doctrine, Europe was changed politically and economically. Small countries stuggled with cival war and they also brought poverty on by Europe. Also wars disturbed trade with Europe. And us dominated affairs of latin America, but European countries could not fight back. “ Our policy, in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, neverless remains the same, which is not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers.
Katrina Lake
ReplyDeleteBloom-Period 5
Response to Jennifer B.
I totally agree with what you are stating in your paragraphs. And the fact that America itself got involved in foreign affairs with Latin America is extremely hypocritical. With the Monroe Doctrine implicitly stating the illegality of getting involved in these affairs, it’s ironic that the U.S. did. Well worded, straight to the point, your analysis was accurate. Good work.
Melanie Locke
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Response to Stephanie Lownds
I like your use of the Monroe Doctrine and it is evident that you understood what the Monroe Doctrine was stating. Your second paragraph was a little confusing, did the United States or Latin America need to focus more internally? This was not evident in your paragraph. Your use of quotes was very good in your second paragraph, you integrated them very well with what you were saying and they added a lot to your paragraph to expand your point.
Molly H.
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Zita, I agree with your assessment that Bolivar was fighting for change within the Latin American governments. However, you didn't mention how the lower classes were speechless in terms of their roll in politics. The reason they had such a difficulty rising against because they were viewed in a "position lower than slavery" (Bolivar).
Your post was very concise and easy to read so thank you!
Brianne Hart
ReplyDeletePeriod 1
Response to Melanie Locke
Melanie, I thought it was useful and informative how you included about the future for Latin America and their confusing political standpoint. The word choice "inner termoil" really summarizes what was happening then as well as your use of quotes really tied into the paragraph and made your argument stronger. I also like how you connect Bolivar into theh democracy that they wished for, overall I agree with your post and it was very concise and fluent to read.
Cole. You said most people who went to America were loyal to the British government. This is mostly true, but it is wrong in that most people were scared to do anything behind Britain's back. A lot of the people weren't loyal, they were just scared to do anything about it. Or didn't have somebody to set the example for them. I also like the beginning of the second paragraph, because America was starting to progress into its own nation and set down its government in stone. Good post.
ReplyDeleteJoe,
ReplyDeleteYour thoughts on the politics of Latin Government are very well developed. I felt it was good that you included the Caudillos as part of your discussion, because i believe that they were a huge part of Latin politics as they embodied the revolutionary spirit that many Latin Americans felt, however you failed to mention the fact that they usually became corrupt and did little to help. Also it was great that you included that some political systems were republics while some, such as Brazil's, were monarchies.
Sam Kroll And Garrett Autry
ReplyDeleteThe first step for Latin America, after gaining its independence, was to form a government. With the exception of Brazil, most of the countries formed some kind of republic. Simon Bolívar attempted to create a Gran Columbia, but failed in the end because of divisions that wouldn’t allow a unified Latin America. He believed that his people had been “enslaved by the government, by its nature or its vices…”Later on Castro took over and orchestrated a revolution that was “…genuine and transcendental…” During this period of revolution many Latin Americans became angry at their colonizers, “long-suffering republics of America”
Brazil remained a monarchy because the son of the Portuguese king had stayed behind when the rest of his family returned to Portugal. Pedro I set up an independent kingdom and left things very close to what they had been. This created unrest among the masses along with the continued practice of slavery.
Stearns, Peter N. et al. World Civilizations. Longman: Pearson Education, Inc., 2011. Print.
Sierra, Jerry A. "Jose Marti's Our America."Cuban History Begins Here. Web. 24 Mar. 2011. .
James Maroney
ReplyDeleteResponse to Jake G.
Jake I agree with your statement that the establishment of schools and higher forms of education enabled countries in Latin America to become a more coherent nation. It makes sense that having a more highly intellectual collection of nations would lead to a massive revolution against colonists. I guess the saying is true that knowledge is power.
Jay Henderson--Bloom Period 5:
ReplyDeleteI think this is a really well thought out post. This post has a lot of depth; you did not simply state what the Panama Canal is and put a quote relating to it, but addressed all of the politically related pieced of the Panama Canal. I like how you included all of the key treaties related to the Panama Canal and the impact of each. My only suggestion is that you could have combined a few of the smaller paragraphs and made it a little more concise.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmilee Greager
ReplyDeleteBloom
Period 1
James,
I fully agree with your paragraphs regarding the political problems in Latin America. I like how you used the Monroe Doctrine as support, it was informative and influential for you're argument. Though the Monroe Doctrine was innovative for it's time, it is also hypocritical of the United States considering we never really withdrew from other countries. The contradictions of the Monroe Doctrine make it a good source. So good job!
Abi Lierheimer
ReplyDeleteResponse to Grace V.
Grace, I agree with the fact that Latin American countries were struggling to keep peace while trying to gain independence. They had trouble on their own simply because they had never been on their own without any influence from the west. The best idea for independence would probably be a gradual withdraw from the support and rule of European countries and learn how to govern their own country in the process.
Luke Chamberlain
ReplyDeleteResponse
Josh I believe that what you say about the revolution in Latin America is accurate and true. In Latin America tensions were high and everyone wondered what the next step to freedom was. Pedro used this as his advantage to help try and free Brazil. But Brazil had to develop a stable government before Pedro could set Brazil free.
I agree with Jesse's analysis on the Political theme of Latin America. In his first sentence he states how it took a great deal of time for them to gain independence. I think this is very useful in knowing and understanding because it shows how far Latin America has come, and how hard they have worked for everything they have. I don't seem to understand though how they worked so hard at establishing countries, but did little for the law and government for each, which may be hurtful in the end for them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCole Johnson
ReplyDeleteperiod 6
In response to Ian R:
Ian, I feel like your first paragraph only told the big picture on Latin American politics. I understand that latin america had a rough time starting out, but i'm reading the same thing over and over, not to pick on you specifically. I think it would be a more interesting topic if it were more in depth, including directions that the latin american people would take in their political roles. Despite my previous statement, i liked how you included the point of view of the author/document.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJessie and I wrote similar arguments. We both pointed out that Latin America's political realm revolved around independence. I also agree that the governments that run the countries are very unstable governments that are pretty selfish and don't care about the people.
ReplyDeleteMichal T.
ReplyDeleteMacy
Period 6
The political realm of Latin America is primarily characterized by a long history of Western intervention. One of the first attempts at preventing this was the Monroe Doctrine written by James Monroe. He said that “it is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness” (Monroe Doctrine). However, this was rather hypocritical of the United States, since “between the end of the Spanish-American War and the dawn of the Great Depression, the United States sent troops to Latin American countries thirty-two times” (U.S. Intervention). This was due to two reasons: the US was acting in their own interest (Panama Canal, US banana companies in Central America) and also tried to prevent the spread of communism.
As seen in Castro’s speech, people had become sick of other countries telling them what to do and tried to break away from their “subjugators”: “Enthusiasm would have soon died down were it not for fact that Latin American masses are witnessing a political-social-economical revolution which is rooting our historic ills and transforming country” (Castro). I totally agree with Sammie that even today, “the governments in Latin America are focused on gaining respect and power as independent countries” (Keitlen, Sammie).
Castro, Fidel. “Message of the Cuban Revolution”. Print.
Monroe, James. The Monroe Doctrine. Print.
U.S. Intervention in Latin America. Web. March 24, 2011.
Standard: Word Choice
Claire Martin
ReplyDeleteResponse to Melanie
Your points are backed up well by the history of many countries and still true today in some places. The way that the government is taken over by the most organized has gotten several countries into dictatorships and then the process of revolution begins again and it is like a never ending cycle. Melanie you did a good job on validating these points and using the quotes as evidence of them.
Kelsey Gallegos
ReplyDeletePeriod 3
Response to Melanie Locke
Melanie, I thought that your paragraphs were great. The quotes that you chose were great for backing up your facts. You did a really good job showing what was going on in the government and what parts of it they borrowed and what parts they implemented for themselves.
The Spanish monarchy funded the exploration of the new world (Which what we know today as the United States). They established their government and had the people of this new found land pay taxes. The old government, the monarchy, ruled South America for decades. The people wanted their own freedom; they did not want their taxes going to the wrong places. They believed that the taxes should be used on the people, and not the king and queen. This created a revolution all over the continent of South America. Finally the people of South America got what they had long desired, their independence. However the first few years of establishing a new government is not easy. Many of these small and individual states turned out to be dictatorships, and some became heavenly isolated from the outside world.
ReplyDeleteJosh Conroy
ReplyDeletePeriod 5 mrs Bloom
response to Kevin schulte
kevin I agree with you when you mentioned in your essay "The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 provided justification for their intervention which perhaps led to the later building of the Panama Canal" because I also thought that the U.S. intervening was for political and economic gain for the U.S. I thought this was a well thought out post and I like what you mentioned about justification of the panama canal.
Dusty age: 17
ReplyDeleteThe political realm of life in Latin America throughout Fidel Castro’s reign was chaotic. When the “bay of pigs” occurred in April of 1961, a group of CIA trained Cuban exiles lost a battle against the Castro Regime. In 1962 the Cuban Missile Crisis occurred. It was a dispute between the U.S., Cuba, and Soviet Russia in which no missiles were launched but many threats were made…keep in mind that these were not hollow threats. Remember that at any point in time these missiles could have been launched.
The influence of Western countries was creating a problem for Fidel Castro. He believed that the western countries were trying to “mess” with him and his country. Castro claims that, “The Cuban revolution is not of superficial variety, but genuine and transcendental. It has shown Latin American people that what appeared impossible can be achieved. This has given them courage and this courage serves to support and strengthen the Cuban Revolution” (F. Castro). Cuba doesn’t claim responsibility for Latin America’s revolutions because, they claim, they don’t interfere. “Cuba does not export its revolution through revolutionary expeditions. It is not responsible for tension in the Caribbean” (F. Castro).
Work Cited
Castro, Fidel. Message of the Cuban Revolution. Print.
Charles Fellows
ReplyDeleteResponse to Trent Tosetti,
Trent I agree with your posting. It was a very well writen post. You knew a lot about your topic and it seemed like you knew what you were doing. I liked how you said all of the Latin American counties that had some sort of a revolution. That was interesting to learn about. I enjoyed reading the quote by Simon Bolivar “I look upon the present state of America as similar to that of Rome after its fall. Each part of Rome adopted a political system comforting to its interest…”. This quote to me was interesting and a good quote for this posting.
Melissa Schweitz
ReplyDeleteRachel Chado
The Monroe Doctrine states that Latin America is “not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers…” (Doctrine 1). The Monroe Doctrine is President James Monroe’s seventh annual message to congress and it was written in 1823. The Monroe Doctrine was written to ensure that Latin America would be governed by themselves and not have any influence from Europe or America. President Monroe advises Europe to stay out of Latin American affairs, he states “only when our rights are invaded, or seriously menaced, that we resent injuries, or make preparation for our defence” (Doctrine 1). Thomas Jefferson soon replies to the Monroe Doctrine. He agrees and states that Latin America should “never entangle [them]selves in the broils of Europe” (Jefferson 1). He believes that Latin American affairs are none of Europe’s business.
One hundred thirty six years after the Monroe Doctrine Fidel Castro wrote a speech about revolutions in Cuba. The speech was delivered on September 11 1959, providing the impact of the Cuban revolution on Latin America. Castro believes that the countries of Latin America are “selfish” because they aren’t following “foreign policy” and “foreign interests” (Castro 2). He states the “Cuban revolution” “has shown Latin American people that what appeared impossible can be achieved” (Castro 2). This soon strengthened the Cuban revolution because of the courage and bravery of the people.
Writing standard: usage of convention
Castro, Fidel. “Message of Cuban Revolution.” 1959. Speech.
Jefferson, Thomas. Response to Monroe Doctrine. Web
Monroe, James. The Monroe Doctrine. Print.
Response to Michal T.:
ReplyDeleteMichal, I really enjoyed reading your paragraphs on Latin American politics. You used good details and I liked how you gave your own opinions, such as when you said the US was hypocritical with the Monroe Doctrine. It was also interesting but a very good addition to reference others works, such as when you used a quote from Sammie’s post. All in all, this post was well thought out with good details, quotes, and opinions. Spot on job, governor!
Response to Melissa and Rachel:
ReplyDeleteThis was a great post. I liked the description of the Monroe doctrine that you guys generously provided. The structure on this paragraph made it easy to read; the quotes were placed nicely to help in the details. Overall, it was nicely informative and a good couple of paragraphs.
Daniel Ullrich
ReplyDelete@Melissa and Rachel
I like the way you began to talk about the monroe doctrine, this helped set the whole seen for your paragraph. Your post was clean, clear, and precise! Great post
Ellie Petrik
ReplyDeletePeriod 6 Macy
Political
Latin America has been a Monarchy for some time but is now breaking away from that style of government and becoming a Republic. With this change comes an unstable economy. With an unstable economy come efforts to try to “improve the [poor] conditions of people in [certain countries: Spain & Portugal], as said in the Monroe Doctrine. As an unstable political government, the Latin Americans seek help from other countries. America was one of those countries.
In the Monroe Doctrine, President James Monroe talks about “the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.” He says that the United States should remain isolationists (remaining apart from the affairs; political affairs of other countries). He is implying to the Countries Spain and Portugal and other countries in the world that the US is not looking to help with foreign affairs. The Latin American government after being a monarchy and now a struggling Republic starts to produce an increasing level of independence amongst the Latin countries, due to the lack of support from the US. Independence amongst the counties is a good thing. It produces more cultural and economic advancements. While it’s creating more innovations and improving lifestyle it also encourages the division of classes and separation of one focused government.
Works Cited
Monroe Doctrine: http://www.ourdocuments.gov/print_friendly.php flash=true&page=transcript&doc=23&title=transcript+of+Monroe+Doctrine+%281823%29.
Joe Vinarcsik P 1
ReplyDeleteMichael, I liked how you said that the Monroe doctrine was hypocritical. I completely agree. I also liked how you used valid quotes to support this. I also liked how you included others opinions in your response. This opened my eyes to the other side of the involvement of the US in the world.