Juan Perón and Getúlio Vargas were very different in how they decided to do things while in power. Juan Peron felt as though more things could be accomplished with force while Getulio Vargas felt the complete opposite. Vargas tried his best to accomplish things without the feeling of force or violence. But somehow that didn't benefit him as much as you would think. It was almost as if people needed to be forced in order to actually listen, it was almost as if people could care less about was Vargas was trying to do to help everyone in Brazil. Vargas truly wanted change, “he proposed a comprehensive labor code, although union leaders -many of whom were communists and anarcho-syndicalists- did not support him, considering him just another incumbent politician. Is platform advocated the …show more content…
secret ballot and voting rights for women? Vargas proposed a drive to improve the nutritional intake of the poor and to address social problems” (Robert Levine p.20). He never wanted to accomplish these things by putting fear in people or forcing people to do as he wished. He was extremely intellectual and knew how to get things, without being violent. Although it seemed to work to his advantage at some point, ultimately things began to fall apart. “His decrees bringing benefits to salaried workers went far beyond the limited and rarely enforced laws of the Old Republic, but they were only incompletely carried out, especially outside of Rio de Janeiro. Social welfare legislation had come at the price of individual freedom” ( Robert Levine p. 43). It was almost as if people needed violence or needed to be forced to do things right. Because Vargas had nothing but good intentions, but the second he would begin to do something good things would somehow turn out bad. “Unionization briefly flourished after Vargas took power - there were nearly five hundred unions in 1935, mostly in Rio and Seo Paulo - but the number of not- recognized unions declined steeply after the November insurrections and the resulting police crackdowns.” (Robert Levine p.44) . Everything was falling apart slowly.
Vargas made it clear that he wanted a better education for students, and although these were probably his true intentions in the end “Only thirty of every one thousand children completed the primary grades when Vargas took power. Educational policies at all levels were uncoordinated, and the number of schools very small, since Brazil was a rural country. Although Vargas made promises about education in most of his speeches, and in spite of the fact that he seemed to be genuinely personally concerned about the need for reform, the 1940 census revealed that fewer than one-quarter of school-age children under the age of fourteen attended class” (Robert Levine p.45). So although he wanted to do all these amazing things, most of those things ended up failing for some reason. Which makes you question maybe if he was more aggressive he would have gotten more things accomplished. Juan Peron, on the other hand, didn't waste any time putting his forceful ways to use, “Shortly after taking office Per6n resolved local problems, beginning in the province of Catamarca, by replacing local authorities with an official appointed by the central
administration. This mechanism of control, pro- vice for in the constitution, was amply used during the first year in cordoba in 1947, La Rioja, Santiago del Estero and Catamarca again in 1948 and Santa Fe in 1949” (Leslie Bethell p.245). He wanted things done rather fast, and in doing so he used resources like armed forces. He made sure that people listened to the things he wanted, and wouldn't take no for an answer, and “with the backing of the army and the Church, and the loyalty of a popular mass soon corralled under a centralized leadership, the new regime had established secure foundations” (Leslie Bethell p.247). He was able to help Argentina with debt issues and much more, but in doing so he used violence, unlike Vargas that took a much different approach. Because of war, “Argentina found itself free of external debt and in possession of substantial reserves of foreign currency, benefiting from high demand and high prices for its food exports and a growing industrial base. Within this framework, the Peroni sta administration implemented an economic policy with three major objectives: the expansion of public spending, giving the state a stronger role in production and distribution; the alteration of relative prices to encourage a more egalitarian distribution of national income; and the progressive accumulation of a system of incentives that rewarded activities oriented towards the internal market and discouraged production destined for international markets” (Leslie Bethell p. 248). He was able to gain so much, due to war and violence, he felt as though there was no other way to get the things he wanted unless he got them by force. Ultimately it worked because “ In only three years - between 1946 and the beginning of 1949 - real income increased more than 40 percent” (Leslie Bethell p.249). Although everyone may not agree with the way he chose to handle things he was able to accomplish many great things for Argentina. He even “ led to a rapid expansion of consumption and an industrial growth that reached to .3 percent in 1946, 12.1 percent in 1947 and 6.9 per cent in 1948. In this context optimism in the business community overcame the apprehension generated by the bold income policy and union power, paving the way for prolonged euphoria in the stock market and a wave of investment by private business” (Leslie Bethell p.249). In conclusion, both Vargas and Peron had very different styles while in power and in the end they had very different outcomes as far as what they were able to accomplish. Makes you wonder if people really do need violence, and forceful behavior in order to run a country. Do people really want that sense of freedom? Or do people truly only listen when they feel as though they are being forced?
Vargas Vila’s speech, “Facing the Barbarians” is about his view of American imperialism. The speech takes on a very angry tone. He explains that the Americans revel in their victory of conquest, leaving the Latin Americas weak, defeated, and afraid. He views American imperialism as conquest, invasion and extortion. He believes that the Americans are, “an arrogant and voracious race, hungry for [their] territory, fixed on conquest.” In other words he doesn’t see any benefits to the American’s having power over their country. He believes that as a people, they need to form a union and, “join together to defend [themselves] against invasion and extortion against Europe and North America.” In Vargas’s speech he conveys his disdain for the Americans
...he lower class had their agenda on mind, and even disrupted the campaign of Allende in order to do so. Allende was then forced to deal with situations he should never have had to, thus hurting his political status with the working class because he could never deliver the results they wanted all the time.
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.
Lyndon B. Johnson and Ronald Reagan have many difference in the government. Lyndon B. Johnson saying that congress role to promote “general welfare” to discover ways to improve government. Reagan called the war on poverty a failure and proposed budget to reduce spending social programs but increase the size of military. By compare and contrasting Lyndon B. Johnson’s speech on affirmative action with Ronald Reagan’s inaugural address can show the differences and alikeness in federal Government.
Presidents Johnson and Reagan led the United States in two very different eras, and have left much different legacies from their time in office. Their social policies while President were almost completely opposites. Johnson was focused on making social reforms to benefit all Americans, while Reagan wanted to lessen the aid given to those in poverty.
It is interesting to see how two leaders from different but united countries tried to improve and in their ways attempt to navigate through financial collapse and the Vietnam War and how different their outcomes were.
JOHN F. KENNEDY IN VIETNAM There are many critical questions surrounding United States involvement in Vietnam. American entry to Vietnam was a series of many choices made by five successive presidents during these years of 1945-1975. The policies of John F. Kennedy during the years of 1961-1963 were ones of military action, diplomacy, and liberalism. Each of his decision was on its merits at the time the decision was made. The belief that Vietnam was a test of the Americas ability to defeat communists in Vietnam lay at the center of Kennedy¡¦s policy. Kennedy promised in his inaugural address, Let every nation know...that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty. From the 1880s until World War II, France governed Vietnam as part of French Indochina, which also included Cambodia and Laos. The country was under the formal control of an emperor, Bao Dai. From 1946 until 1954, the Vietnamese struggled for their independence from France during the first Indochina War. At the end of this war, the country was temporarily divided into North and South Vietnam. North Vietnam came under the control of the Vietnamese Communists who had opposed France and aimed for a unified Vietnam under Communist rule. Vietnamese who had collaborated with the French controlled the South. For this reason the United States became involved in Vietnam because it believed that if all of the country fell under a Communist government, Communism would spread throughout Southeast Asia and further. This belief was known as the domino theory. The decision to enter Vietnam reflected America¡¦s idea of its global role-U.S. could not recoil from world leadership. The U.S. government supported the South Vietnamese government. The U.S. government wanted to establish the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO), which extended protection to South Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos in case of Communist subversion. SEATO, which came into force in 1955, became the way which Washington justified its support for South Vietnam; this support eventually became direct involvement of U.S. troops. In 1955, the United States picked Ngo Dinh Diem to replace Bao Dai as head of the anti-Communist regime in South Vietnam. Eisenhower chose to support Ngo Dinh Diem. John Fitzgerald Kennedy was born in Brookline, Mass., on May 29, 1917. Kennedy graduated from Harvard University in 1940 and joined the Navy the next year.
Thomas G. Paterson's essay, "Kennedy's Fixation with Cuba," is an essay primarily based on the controversy and times of President Kennedy's foreign relations with Cuba. Throughout President Kennedy's short term, he devoted the majority of his time to the foreign relations between Cuba and the Soviet Union. After the struggle of WW II, John F. Kennedy tried to keep a tight strong hold over Cuba as to not let Cuba turn to the Communist Soviet Union. Kennedy seen Cuba and the Soviet Union as a major threat to the United States. As Castro fell farther and farther into the Communist party, he inched his way closer and closer to becoming a close ally with the Soviet's, As Kennedy seen this happen before his eyes, he was astonished. Kennedy, a newly formed president, did not want to seem like the kind to just sit back and roll with the punches, he wanted immediate action taken for these measures. "As someone said, Cuba was one of the four-letter words of the 1960s" (268). Cuba was not viewed as a very potential power before Fidel Castro took office. It was viewed more as a neutral country that we sent aide and military supplies to in exchange for sugar and other products. When Castro took office, things drastically changed. He started taking back land that we had set aside for military bases, he wanted the American forces no more than what they had in Washington, and he openly defied orders from America. Unknown to Kennedy Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union, was also watching everything that played out between Cuba and the United States. President Kennedy, later realizing, would make a few decisions for the worst. These decisions would haunt him for the re...
In a tradition dating back to George Washington, every newly-elected president gives an inaugural address at the time of his swearing into office. Many of these inaugural speeches have been given during times of war. Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address was given on March 4, 1865, near the end of the American Civil War, Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Fourth Inaugural Address was given on January 20, 1945, in the last year of World War Two, and John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address was given on January 20, 1961, during the darkest years of the Cold War. Each in their own way, in their respective inaugural addresses, spoke words of reassurance and encouragement to a nation’s people troubled by war and anxious about peace.
His effective descriptions of his struggles in life contribute to the emotional tone of compassion, “I grew up here. This is my home. Yet even though I think of myself as an American and consider America my country, my country doesn’t think of me as one of its own” (Vargas) and excite in the reader his kind nature and convince the reader to accept and understand him well, as he says, “I convinced myself that if I worked enough, if I achieved enough, I would be rewarded with citizenship. I felt I could earn it” (Vargas). All of his words are very strong that can win the reader’s,
Giving a successful speech, in any language, is a difficult yet gratifying skill. Great speeches can be inspiring, compelling, and even revolutionary – indeed, these speeches are deliberate, succinct, engaging, and unforgettable. Two examples of such great speeches in both literature and in history are Mark Antony’s eulogy in Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar and Robert F. Kennedy’s On the Death of Martin Luther King. Through the speakers’ use of parallel structure, caesuras, and personal references – three stylistic devices and techniques – not only were both speakers able to embellish their speeches; it also allowed each speaker to deliver an even more powerful speech. In these speeches, the use of repetition through the anaphoral and epiphoral structure in both speeches accentuates the purpose of the speech, while the use of caesuras adds texture and tone to the speech, and the use of personal references engages and stimulates the audience.
After gaining independence, Latin American countries had difficulty in how to govern the newly instated states. In the chaos, people took advantage of this and instated themselves as dictators. They had simply took the position from the Spanish that they tried to vanquish (class notes). The power structure remained and the people who fought for independence were largely ignored and continuously oppressed. These dictatorships had remained in power until very recently. Paraguay was finally freed from the dictatorship in 1989 (Chapter
De Lourdes Rollemberg Mollo, Maria and Alfredo Saad-Filho. "Neoliberal Economic Policies in Brazil (1994 – 2005): Cardoso, Lula and the Need for a Democratic Alternative." New Political Economy March 2006: 99-123.
Perhaps the most critical moment that had occurred to the United States and the world of the last century is the Cuban Missile Crisis. The significance of this event was that it had brought the world to the closest it could ever be to a nuclear war. Millions of lives, cultures and infrastructure would have been lost if it was not splendidly dealt with. Yet, a man was able to prevent this devastation, and he was none other than President John Fitzgerald Kennedy (JFK) of the United States. How was he significant to the event? This research paper will discuss it with the points that are based on JFK’s characteristics. Hence, to provide an overview of this paper; the outbreak of nuclear warfare was prevented in the Cuban Missile Crisis specifically by John F. Kennedy’s many distinguished characteristics.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews