The majority of Latin American countries were being exploited under Spanish control. Many Latin American countries fought and revolted against the Spanish power which eventually led to the Independence Era. However, even though Latin America had reached Independence, they had difficulty forming their own government and had trouble figuring out which form of government to follow. Bolivar argued that like Positivists, Latin America is not ready for the most perfect and complete form of government such as Republican Liberty because it must instead undergo a period of Political Education and Progression.
Positivism appealed to most Latin American countries because it was a scientific method that promoted improvement and it caused a period of questioning.
…show more content…
The law of three stages is a concept of the evolution of human knowledge and he applied it towards society. The three stages are Supernatural/ Theological, Metaphysical and Scientific. In the first stage, “Supernatural/ Theological” , Comte describes how people in the ancient world relied on supernatural and divine explanations to understand society and the world. For instance, People believed that the planets and stars in the sky were god's looking down on earth. They also believed that the reason for earthquakes and natural disasters was due to upsetting god. The second stage is the “Metaphysical” phase. The Metaphysical stage is when people start evolving. Comte believed that this stage began in the Middle Ages in Europe. They still believed in gods and divine explanations but this was the period of questioning and the period of Skepticism. Finally, the last stage is the “Scientific” stage. This is the period when people view the world as explained by science. This was also the period where they mold the ideas from the Metaphysical stage and apply it to the social world. For instance, In the modern world, People know for a fact that planets are made up of rocks and gasses. This has been heavily experimented, tested and proved by science. Bolivar’s beliefs relates with Comte’s “Three Stages” because Bolivar believed that America must go through a period of questioning and skepticism before they could mold and apply it to the social …show more content…
“These opposite extremes would only wreck us on similar reefs of misfortune and dishonor, hence, we must seek a mean between them. I say: Do not adopt the best system of government, but the one that is most likely to succeed” (Bolivar, 35) Bolivar’s ideas resonates with nineteenth century Positivism because his beliefs are blending traditional and modern customs. He wants Latin America to hold on to Traditional customs but also wants Latin America to progress and modernize. “It is union, obviously; but such union will come about thorugh sensible planning and well-directed actions rather than define magic…” (Bolivar, 37). Like Positivists, Bolivar also believes in having a strong state. “...eminent roles of legislator,magistrate,minister...that compromises the hierarchy of a fully organized state” (Bolivar, 32) Bolivar believed that having a strong state is the a method that worked best for Latin America at the time because it gives individuals a right to decide while the government still had a strong nation state. They had a government that was able to deal with political turbulence but limited people’s political
This paper will be exploring the book The Vanguard of the Atlantic World by James Sanders. This book focuses upon the early 1800 to the 1900 and explores the development of South American political system as well expresses some issues that some Latino counties had with Europe and North America. Thus, Sanders focus is on how Latin America political system changes throughout this certain time and how does the surrounding countries have an effect as well on Latin political system. Therefore, the previous statement leads into some insight on what the thesis of the book is. Sanders thesis is, “Latin American’s believed they represented the future because they had adopted Republicanism and democracy while Europe was in the past dealing with monarchs
Time and rules have been transforming countries in many ways; especially, in the 1850’s and the 1920’s, when liberals were firmly in control across Latin American region. Liberalism can be defined as a dominant political philosophy in which almost every Latin American country was affected. A sense of progress over tradition, reason over faith, and free market over government control. Although each country was different, all liberals pursued similar policies. They emphasize on legal equality for all citizens, progress, free trade, anti-slavery, and removing power from church. Liberals declared promising changes for Latin American’s future. But Latin America had a stronger hierarchical society with more labor systems, nothing compare to the United States societies. Liberals weren’t good for Latin America. What I mean by “good” is the creation of a turning point or some type of contribution towards success. I define “good” as beneficial or helpful. The Latin American economy was stagnant between 1820 and 1850 because of independence wars, transportation and the recreation of facilities. I describe this era as, “the era when Latin America when off road”.
... gain to Spain. He also viewed the Americans that were under the Spanish rule as serfs. Serfs are classified as a member of the lowest feudal class with a status so low that it makes it harder to gain freedom. Bolivar does not agree with absolutism which he feels is another form of slavery. His idea of governance for Latin America is one that is “organized as a great republic”, but he sees this as impossible. Bolivar expresses that it would be nice to have “an august assembly of representatives of republics, kingdoms, and empires to deliberate upon high interest of peace and war with the nations of the other three-quarters of the globe. This type of organization may come to pass in some happier period of our regeneration” (413).
During his lifetime Bolivar has achieved many great accomplishments. One of these is the sole liberation of the South American Continent, giving him the revered nickname “El Libertador” or “The Liberator”.
The caudillo system established in Latin America after the wars for independence consisted of unstable transitional governments that achieved few of the goals recognized in an effective democratic government. Despite these shortcomings, the caudillo system maintained a predictable social order and prevented chaos. This system was the best available until the formation of a middle class could be achieved, resulting in a more democratic political system.
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Colombia’s history has had many episodes of violence ever since it won its independence from Spain in 1819. After independence, the people of Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Panama, northern Peru, western Guyana, and northwest Brazil united to form a single nation called Gran Colombia. Simon Bolivar became this new republic’s first president. However, Gran Colombia would not last for long. Its leaders would become divided on how the new republic should be governed. Some of its leaders would favor a strong centralized government whereas others would prefer a federal form of government. Liberal and conservative views would divide the country. Finally, in 1831, Gran Colombia would divide into the nations that originally formed it
As early as 1820’s decade, the Chilean statesman Diego Portales, warned his countrymen about the Monroe Doctrine and US interests in the Western Hemisphere. In Portales’ view the United States had not collaborated in the Latin American independence and represented an imperialistic threat. In Frederick Spike’s words, the anti-Yankee spirit of Portales became in a tradition of the Chilean foreign policy. Some years later, during the war between Chile and the Peru-Bolivia Confederation (1836-1839,) the United States –in spite of its official neutrality- favored the confederation’s position. According to Heraldo Muñoz, Americans believed that a Chilean victory would provoke an imbalance of power in South America, extending the economic protectionism advocated by its authorities and affecting the US trade in the region.
It, however, was a sales pitch to continue Latin America’s subordinate position in the global market. As a result, much of Latin America, from the late 1980 through the early 1990s, transitioned into this form of “democracy”. Consequently, Latin America suffered and still suffers today from underdevelopment, high levels of socioeconomic inequality, and immigration. Globalization of capital, off-shore production, and new technologies have created structural barriers and have led to economic and social inequalities among the Latino communities in the U.S. Politically, the program changes the control of the political system to less direct coercive rule. Economically, it eliminated state intervention in the economy; this allowed the adjusting of local economies to serve the global economy instead of their national economy.
Hugo Chavez was the president of Venezuela from 1999 to 2013. He had an interesting way of running the country during his presidency. His political position or ideology could be best defined as Bolivarianism for many reasons. Bolivarianism can be described as a set of doctrines that was popular in South America. It is named after the famous liberator Simon Bolivar. Hugo Chavez’s ideology involved ideas from others he had come to admire. Of course one of those that he admired was Simon Bolivar. The ideas for his ideology all began at a young age when he fell in love with history (Jones 23). During this age Hugo Chavez would often times read about a general named Ezequiel Zamora whom his great great grandfather had served (Marcano, Tyszka 11). Ezequiel Zamora will become a major influence in his ideology later on in his life. Besides Zamora, Chavez would also read about many other theorists. Hugo Chavez not only lived in poverty but also witnessed how bad the poverty around him was (Jones 25-26). Chavez did not like this poverty and wanted to change that any way he could. As he grew up he continued reading about the different theorists and ideologies that they made up (Jones 40). So since a young age Chavez had always been a leftist. As mentioned earlier it continued throughout his life and it intensified during his days at the military academy (Wilpert 07) Eventually Chavez became the president and his political position progressed further left (Wilpert 07). In other words he rejected both far left ideologies such as communism or Marxism-Leninism and moderate ideologies such as social democracy or the third way. However Chavez was aware of these different ideologies but did not consider being part of it. Hugo Chavez instead began t...
...ad a general feeling of apathy towards the country as a whole. European influence guided Latin America in many decisions throughout the nineteenth century. Not all instances of European culture were beneficial for Latin America to follow.
Through his first-hand observations of the severe poverty, oppression, and powerlessness of the masses, Guevara decided that the only remedy for Latin America's economic and social inequities lay in revolution. His travels also inspired him to look upon Latin America not as a collection of separate nations, but as a single cultural and economic entity whose liberation would require an intercontinental strategy.
First of all, the wars that took place between 1808 and 1825 created a lot of instability within the continent. Economic, social and politic instability occures for a long period of time. Most of the Latin American nation were plagued by revolt, civil war and dictatorship. Political instability took place because independence didn't create any stable political regime since every institutions didn't have a specific identity and had to create it trough new national symbols to brake the link with the past.On of the main political debate was in between liberalism and conservatism. Conservative wanted to maintain the traditional social structures in order to ensure stability when liberals wanted to create a more dynamic society and economy by ending
Hugo Chavez's political discourse based on the Marxist thoughts soon was creating "The Bolivarian Revolution", and since its beginning offered the XXI century socialism, which one was never described specifically to people. 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 in advantages for his own purposes, deploy 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, become the most recognized leader of the left in worldwide.
Scholars have debated not only the nature of Iberian colonialism, but also the impact that independence had on the people of Latin America. Historian Jaime E. Rodriguez said that, “The emancipation of [Latin America] did not merely consist of separation from the mother country, as in the case of the United States. It also destroyed a vast and responsive social, political, and economic system that functioned well despite many imperfections.” I believe that when independence emerged in Latin America, it was a positive force. However, as time progressed, it indeed does cause conflict.