The reign of Hugo Chavez is a very contentious issue for politicians and journalists alike. His radical views regarding ways to deal with poverty, and the amount of control he instituted on privately run oil companies, led to him developing a large cast of haters and appreciators. This means there will be obvious bias for nearly anyone looking into the issue of Chavez’s reign, and thus one must make connections between these biased articles to really understand the true nature of his rule. The purpose of this paper is to look at the deeper connections between the various sources depicting the life and ideals of Hugo Chavez, and globalization, helping us to understand both how bias and the technique that ideas are presented to us, really shape …show more content…
This article exists without pre-existing biases, and thus provides an accurate representation of what Chavez did after that contentious time in his reign. This article was written in 2002 and thus Chavez had only been the leader of Venezuela for 3 years, meaning that many of his disliked proposals had not yet seen the light of day. This means that we are getting glimpse to how Chaves was back when he was first elected. The article goes on to state that Chavez re-invigorated OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Producing Countries, as he mentioned the need for OPEC to diversify and create greater control over oil prices globally. This idea angered many international oil corporations leading to disputed between them and a Chavez led government. This conflict led to Chavez instituting stricter controls over the oil production in Venezuela. Furthering the pressure put on other governments globally, as at a point, nearly all of Venezuela’s 2 million barrels per day of oil production was shut down. Leading to these companies re-starting oil production in that country. Chavez is detailed as a leader with wildly liberal ideas and one who would really bring a new perspective to the table, but at that time they were ignorant to the misgivings that Chavez would ultimately create. The writer of this article showed a deep knowledge of the events surrounding …show more content…
In the past the only way that one could seek to understand the world around them was through a newspaper, that only represented one particular bias. In today’s world, one can seek many different sources for information and look to objectively view sources to formulate a thoughtful and reasonable perspective, or just search for opinions that only support ones pre-existing ideals. This means that everyone has a much larger range of views and many more ideas to observe and think about than in the past. This can also be said about Hugo Chavez’s rule, as he was elected at the turn of the 20th century, resulting in perspectives about him becoming widely available to all that wish to see them. Chavez inspired many different beliefs about the way he ruled Venezuela, whether one believed him to be a consort to dictators or a defender of the people, the fact that one can be having these kinds of discussions is fact in itself that globalization has changed and shaped our world in a way that no one could have imagined mere decades ago. Hugo Chavez is chief example of how people all around the globe can form their own opinions on someone who's actions may or may not truly effect them, though it is interesting to see how in a globalized world, anyone and everyone can have an opinion on anyone and
People in both Venezuela and in Fahrenheit 451 are not allowed to speak out or go against the government without the government's harsh retaliation. Both of these instances show suppression of freedom of speech, but this theme is more strongly expressed by Maduro’s actions.
Chavez was a major leader in the Chicano movement that all started when he was nineteen years-old when he joined the NFLU (National Farm Labor Union). From then, he moved on to the CFO, where he moved up in rank quite easily which he eventually quit. After his nine year stint with the CFO, he then founded the union of t...
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...
1. What is the difference between a. and a. Topic: style- satirical tone “Do you see these little holes on his arms that appear to be pores?.these holes emit a certain grease that allows our model to slip and slide right through the crop with no trouble at all” (1199). The satirical tone exemplifies the realization of the paradox towards Mexican prejudice; the author satirizes society’s stereotypes against Mexicans. Demonstrating how in reality some individuals view Mexicans as robots instead of human beings. The author criticizes the label of a farmworker and thus shows how society may perceive Mexican as only being good for fieldwork.
Chavez uses multiple rhetorical strategies to bring forth the ideal that nonviolence and achieves his purpose by show his involvement and compassion in nonviolence. He delivers strong arguments to gain the support of his followers and achieves his purpose of bringing attention to and gaining the support of nonviolence.Today Cesar Chavez leaves a legacy as one of the prime examples of a nonviolent protester and is known for founding president
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.
The purpose of this memo is to compare the similarities and contrast the differences between Jimmy Hoffa Sr. and Cesar Chavez. Both Hoffa and Chavez were great charismatic labor organizers who had different methods of achieving their goals for their union. They had vastly different attitudes and personalities which aided them both in different ways. To fully understand each individual, a bit of background information is necessary.
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.
White, Robert E. 2013. "After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba". The New
Cesar Chavez was an activist for the farm workers movement and had an article published in the magazine of a religious organization on nonviolence on the tenth anniversary of Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination in the 60’s at the height of the civil rights movement. Many people wanted to turn to violence but Chavez leads them away from that course through his uses of the causes and effects of violence and nonviolence with the appeal to historical events, compelling diction, and his appeals to basic moral beliefs of his reader to achieve his overall purpose of calling the farm workers to unify and to gain direction to stand up to the manipulative rich.
When we think about society, there is often a stark contrast between the controversy projected in the media that our society faces, and the mellow, safe view we have of our own smaller, more tangible, ‘local’ society. This leads us to believe that our way of life is protected, and our rights secured by that concept of society that has been fabricated and built upon. However, what if society were not what we perceive it to be, and the government chose to exercise its power in an oppressive manner? As a society we would like to think that we are above such cruelty, yet as The Lonely Crossing of Juan Cabrera by J. Joaquin Fraxedas recounts the state of Cuba in the 1990’s, we must also remember that all societies and governments view the individual differently as opposed to the whole. Each group has unique expectations that are enforced upon the individual which extend beyond those expectations that are written. What this book brings to light is the extraordinary repercussions of refusing to meet the demands and expectations of those that lead our governments. When we veer from the path well-trodden and into the ‘wild’ as Juan did, we may not face death quite as often, but the possibility of those we once called our own, persecuting us for our choices is a true and often an incredibly frightening danger.
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.
Carlos Alberto Montaner makes several core points as to why social unrest and the rise of the left in Latin America will be the demise of Latin America. He starts his argument by naming leaders of the leftist movement in several Latin American countries. He then, goes on to say that in these leftists’ governments, parliaments are discredited, political prestige has lost its value, and the judicial branch and police are unjust and corrupt.
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...
Through the years, Chavez government opposition movements and student force have became stronger and gained support from many national and international non-government organizations interested in the Venezuela crisis, therefore, even if it seems impossible, opposition movements, including student force and common-civil people should keep fighting for having freedom of speech and press.