Juan Evo Morales Ayma prevalently known as Evo, is a Bolivian government official and cocalero dissident who has been filling in as President of Bolivia since 2006. Generally viewed as the nation's first president to originate from the indigenous people, his administration has concentrated on the execution of liberal arrangements, neediness lessening, and fighting the impact of the United States and multinational companies in Bolivia. As a leader of a coca-cultivators union, he was additionally the primary president to rise up out of the social movements whose dissents forced Bolivia's two past presidents from office.
As president, he guaranteed to administer for Bolivia's indigenous majority, who had endured hundreds of years of being marginalize and discrimination. A declared `socialist, his political belief system consolidates standard left-wing thoughts with an accentuation on customary indigenous Andean
…show more content…
Hugo Chavez was the president of Venezuela, when he was president he advocated an end to corruption, increased spending on social programs, and redistribution of the country’s oil wealth. Just like Evo Morales, Hugo Chavez wanted to represent the people that had been looked over, discriminated against, and marginalized. Even though both men had a good majority support of their country there were still people that disapproved their presidency and advocated for them to step down. In Evo Morales case opposition was concentrated in the wealthy eastern lowland province of Santa Cruz, Bolivia's financial powerhouse. Regional leaders there drove a crusade for more noteworthy self-sufficiency, contending that Mr. Morales' socialist approaches were harming the economy. Some of the indigenous pioneers, earthy people and activists who helped put Evo Morales in government have censured him, contending that his strategies appear to support the rich, light-skinned
Dia de los reyes magos is on Jan. 5 - Feb. 2 and the day is about the 3 wisemen, But January the 6th is the special day in Mexico….. this day represents the height of the Christmas season. This celebration is where it is stated that the kings, Melchor, Gaspar, and Balthasar, traveled by night all the way from the farthest confines of the Earth to bring gifts to Jesus, whom they recognized as the Son of God. As well as regal, the Three Kings are depicted as wise men, whose very wisdom is proved by their acknowledgement of Christ's divine status. Arrived from three different directions, the kings followed the light provided by the star of Bethlehem, which reportedly lingered over the manger where the Virgin Mary gave birth for many days. In
In Mañana Es San Perón: A Cultural History of Perón’s Argentina, Mariano Ben Plotkin - an emeritus professor and doctor in history and writer of Peronist Argentinean history at the university of California, Berkeley, addresses one of the first populist movement in the region of South America: el peronismo. After offering an important contextualizing “Introduction,” Plotkin organized his book into four main parts composing the book, each containing two chapters, resulting in a total of eight. Consequently, the author also offers, after the main four parts, Notes, a selected bibliography, and an index. The author concludes this book with an interesting and polemic conclusion where he discusses if Peronism was totalitarian. Plotkin, in Manana es San Perón, attempts to give a historical account about Perón’s Argentina through a cultural perspective.
Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated racism and economic exploitation, and paved the way for all-consuming, cultural wars in the centuries to come.
Through the study of the Peruvian society using articles like “The “Problem of the Indian...” and the Problem of the Land” by Jose Carlos Mariátegui and the Peruvian film La Boca del Lobo directed by Francisco Lombardi, it is learned that the identity of Peru is expressed through the Spanish descendants that live in cities or urban areas of Peru. In his essay, Mariátegui expresses that the creation of modern Peru was due to the tenure system in Peru and its Indigenous population. With the analyzation of La Boca del Lobo we will describe the native identity in Peru due to the Spanish treatment of Indians, power in the tenure system of Peru, the Indian Problem expressed by Mariátegui, and the implementation of Benedict Andersons “Imagined Communities”.
Chavez was greatly supported the idea of equality the he “gained national stature as a labor union spokesman” with all the action he would take not only in his community but others as well. He was such an influential person that the people of the US Senate offered him to” have a testimony during an US Senate subcommittee hearing” . While he is there he lets the people know how these migrant farm workers are being treated and what people are able to do to help. His actions that he took changed US History by letting the people know what and how the migrant workers are treated.
Chávez’s leadership was based on an unshakable commitment to nonviolence, personal sacrifice and a strict work ethic. He emphasized the necessity of adhering to nonviolence, even when faced with violence from employers and growers, because he knew if the strikers used violence to further their goals, the growers and police would not hesitate to respond with even greater vehemence. Despite his commitment to nonviolence, many of the movement’s ‘enemies’, so to speak, made efforts to paint the mo...
George Washington knew him. So did Napoleon Bonaparte. Hugo Chavez and many other South American presidents have referred to him. Francisco De Paula Santander was his political opponent. And Joseph Bonaparte, king of Spain, knew him as an enemy. The person all these people are referring to is Simon Bolivar, or better known as “The Liberator” (“Simon Bolivar Biography”). Simon Bolivar impacted society in a positive way because of his contributions in liberating South America, love for South America, and his efforts to unite South America.
The Andes had a legacy of resistance that was unseen in other Spanish occupied place during the colonial period. There were rebellions of various kinds as a continued resistance to conquest. In the “Letters of Insurrection”, an anthology of letters written amongst the indigenous Andean people, between January and March 1781 in what is now known as Bolivia, a statement is made about the power of community-based rebellion. The Letters of Insurrection displays effects of colonization and how the “lesser-known” revolutionaries that lived in reducción towns played a role in weakening colonial powers and creating a place of identification for indigenous people.
On January 1, 2004, over one thousand people in the mountain hamlet of Oventic, Chiapas, celebrated the 10th anniversary of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (EZLN) rebellion with song and dance. Thus, it seems a fitting time to take stock of the successes and failures of the Zapatista movement in the context of its original goals. While the EZLN has been able to establish thirty eight autonomous indigenous communities in Chiapas, it has failed to weaken the Mexican government's commitment to neo-liberal economic policies. In the following pages, we will explore those factors which enabled the Zapatistas to establish regions of autonomy and extrapolate from Theotonio Dos Santos' understanding of the effects of reliance on foreign capital and Nora Hamilton's analysis of the 'limits to state autonomy' to rationalize the failure of the Zapatista's broader vision of social justice.
If Chavez would have stood for illegal immigration, I believe, he would have been twice as powerful. Thousands didn't join him in his cause because of his position on that. In spite of that, however, Chavez reached millions and changed the Mexican American society forever.
To sum up, Chavez was a man that fought for farmers to be traded better. One of his quotes was “The fight is never about grapes or lettuce. It is always about people”. With this, we can conclude that no matter the kind of strike he had lead, it was always for the people. For example, when he was fighting about the pesticide in grapes or lettuces, the true fight he was leading was always a fight for the people in order to make their lives easier. Maybe his life was not easy as a child working at a young age or maybe it got more complicated as he got older and enter the unions to defend the people that worked on farms, but he got to be a hero among the farmers. More importantly, Chavez got the farmers the momentum they needed in order for them to fight for what they wanted, and in the end, accomplished to get the rights they deserved.
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
Venezuela was one of the richest countries that emerged from the collapse of Gran Colombia in 1830 (the others being Colombia and Ecuador). For most of the first half of the 20th century, Venezuela was ruled by generally benevolent military strongmen, who promoted the oil industry and allowed for some social reforms. Democratically elected governments have held sway since 1959. Current concerns include: a polarized political environment, a politicized military, drug-related violence along the Colombian border, increasing internal drug consumption, overdependence on the petroleum industry with its price fluctuations, and irresponsible mining operations that are endangering the rain forest and indigenous peoples.
Hugo Chavez was a powerful and positive force in addressing social issues, however, his singular focus on social issues at the expense of other matters of the country left the Venezuelan economy in tatters. In 1998, 50.4% of the Venezuelan population was living below the poverty line, where as in 2006 the numbers dropped to 36.3% (Chavez leaves). Although he aggressively confronted the issue of poverty in Venezuela, many other problems were worsened. Some Chavez critics say he used the state oil company like a piggy bank for projects: funding homes, and healthcare while neglecting oil infrastructure and production. Without growth in the oil ind...
As a result, with the passing of the years Chavez created an atmosphere of division, violence and unrest within the population. Thus, created a marked difference between the supporters and opponents of his policies, a situation that President Hugo Chavez took advantage of for his own purposes, deploying a communist regime disguised as a socialist. In other words, Chavez tricked Venezuela’s people, offering the establishment of a socialism that was nothing more than a dictatorship adapted to their own purposes, becoming the most recognized leader of the left worldwide. Throughout the fourteen years that he remained in power, Chávez followed a strategy of introducing a socialist government in Venezuela in stages. According to Enrique Standish in the article titled “Venezuela Finally Turns Communist” it happened in four stages.