Venezuela’s political prospects changed in 1999 when Hugo Chavez became president.
Starting his presidency, Chavez created a new constitution for Venezuela, and the country’s
name was changed to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. Since then, the country had a
total change as it underwent a system of socialism, as the oil company and many other private
businesses were nationalized. In this socialist system, revenues generated from the oil industry
were invested in social programs to help the country’s poorer population. On the other hand,
Chavez confiscated many properties from those of the middle and upper class, transferring
them to state ownership, and also created animosity with other nations, defying them in many
ways. These acts were harmful to the wealthy population in Venezuela but beneficial to the
poor. As a result, Chavez was praised by the poor who considered him a hero, while the wealthy
Venezuelans and some critics (in other countries) despised him, deeming him a villain. Which
group of people is right about their assumptions? Was Chavez a hero or a villain?
Supporters of Chavismo— the term popularly used to refer to Chavez’s socialist
policies— adore the system of socialism, and strongly proclaim that it is the best system
compared to others. However, this sentiment has been refuted by others. In a CNN News article
earlier this year, Roger Noriega, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, states that Chavez
was a complete villain as he destroyed the economy and consolidated all power in his hands.
He destroyed the democratic institutions in the country and left the Venezuelan democracy in
a worse situation than before, Noriega claims. In addition, he states that “[Chavez] w...
... middle of paper ...
... regard were an impressive feat that no Arab leader, dictator was ever
able to accomplish (qtd. in Young). Chavez is beloved by his supporters that even after his death
they continue to admire him. For instance, Nicolas Maduro is quoted in a Trinidad and Tobago
news blog saying that “Those who die for life cannot be called dead, Chavez lives, the battle
continues.” He adds: “Honor and glory to Hugo Chavez, May he live forever.”
Hugo Chavez made history in his country as well as worldwide, for both his his so called
good and bad deeds. People around the world differ in their perspectives on his legacy, having
their own definition for his deeds. It is clear that President Hugo Chavez was a complicated
public figure who did much for Venezuela, and people need to carefully examine those facts
before branding him with a name tag of either hero or Villain.
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.
... 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).
Cesar Chavez is now recognized as the Martin Luther King Jr. of the migrant farm workers, and of the Mexican People.
Through the years, individuals have shown that a single man can make a difference. Men who, when committed to a cause, will rise up with honor, integrity, and courage. Cesar Chavez was such a man. He represented the people and rose above his self concerns to meet the needs of the people. Cesar Chavez showed us that, “The highest form of freedom carries with it the greatest measure of discipline.” He lived by this standard and fought freedom with the highest form of dignity and character.
Chavez and Hoffa were highly successful. The differences in their methods and approaches, should not lessen the incredible feats that they achieved for the workers that they worked with and for the workers of today. Their personalities and approaches are what led to them being two of the most remarkable union organizers and leaders of the
White, Robert E. 2013. "After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba". The New
Cesar Chavez set a message a multitude of people support: it was about farm workers' rights. In the 1960s, hard working farmers were paid low salaries and were often mistreated by their leaders. Chavez was one of the many who were brutalized; however, unlike others, he stood up for the workers' rights. All his efforts of eliminating this misery was reflected in his powerful speech "We Shall Overcome".
Chavez acknowledges the peoples feelings of frustration and anger, but refutes the idea, claiming that nonviolence is greatly powerful. Elaborating his point, Cesar includes, “Nonviolence provides the opportunity to stay on the offensive, and that is crucial importance to win any contest”. The author advocates to win in his fight not only for himself but for his own union of farm workers. Promotion of equal working laws, with benefits such as shorter hours, drives Chavez to speak to the government. Back in this period, not only were laborers working grueling work hours in overheated weather conditions, but also received minimal
A man of the unions, a man of democracy. Cesar Chavez gained a prominent reputation throughout his illustrious lifetime. From campaigning for farmer rights to encouraging individual involvement in the government, passion and resilience remained with Chavez throughout these times. Cesar Chavez utilized one key component throughout his strives: words. He spoke numerous, profound opinions of inspiration and vitality. Out of all, one quote stood out: “We don’t need perfect political systems; we need perfect participation.” This statement elucidated the reality of American society; that a handful of individuals, cannot speak for all.
Even before Cesar Chavez was born people around the United States were treated unfairly. Many of them worked hard and didn’t get paid for their hard work. When he was young his parents and his siblings worked in the fields and all of them were still not able to make enough money to settle and have a good life. When Cesar Chavez grew older he opened his own grocery store to help and support the farmers that actually get paid a decent amount of
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.
The film opens with a news program reporting Chávez’s consumption of coca and linking it to the alleged poor governance of Venezuela. He was called a dictator, together with Morales, who was not directly mentioned in the segment but was simply referred to as “the dictator from Bolivia” who supplied him with ...
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...