As the Latin American nations set out to construct a new government and society in the 1800´s, two opposing models aroused regarding which one would best benefit the countries. ¨Civilization vs. Barbarism¨ by Domingo Sarmiento, a recognized Argentinean revolutionary, contrasts Jose Marti´s ¨Our America¨ ideology which critiques U.S. capitalism and focuses on developing a good government based on the needs of the nations and each nation´s autochthony. Contrastingly, Sarmiento, guided by his beliefs in democratic principles, declares his preference towards the European urbanized way of life as the key to progress and stability for the nations. Despite the differences in the models proposed by Marti and Sarmiento for the New Nations to follow, …show more content…
Therefore, drastic differences in opinion make Jose Marti the exact opposite of Domingo Sarmiento. Marti’s voice in “Our America” declares dangers of aspects stated by Sarmiento and relies on using aspects already in Latin America to fund a stable government and society. Marti claims that “to govern well an understanding and appreciation of local realities is required.” By stating this he is somewhat criticizing and differing with Sarmiento’s sacred opinions on being a pure reflection of European and foreign customs. Moreover, Marti smashes these declarations and believes influence from other countries won’t ever be as valuable as his own nation’s influence and reality. Marti is also antiracist by claiming that “the uneducated will govern because it is their nature to confront and resolve problems with their hands, while the educated dither over which formula to import.” Giving the lowest classes in civilization a voice and power is of importance to Marti contrastingly from Sarmiento according to the previous quote from the text. His American model relied on “giving way to American education… and teaching the history of the Americas, from the Incas to the present.” By educating citizens on their nation rather than imitating foreign customs, adaptation to local realities could be accomplished and therefore resulting in progress. Additionally, Marti also confesses his fear towards “our strong neighbor the United States and its expansionism of ideas, possibly influencing the Americas. However, unification through the nation’s national identity and working for common objectives despite differences is the main goal for Marti’s
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
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.
claim that there is “something very wrong with the system” of Americas, he defines the
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”.
“Transnational communities and selves emerge when people from different cultural groups meet and live in shared spaces” (Fischer, 155-156). The American nation today could easily be seen as a transnational America, thus, this essay shows that Bourne’s idea of empowering all citizens. Especially immigrants,that had led to the America that is known and loved today. Although, empowerment of citizens is important, so is domination, which is why Roosevelt’s ideas of strong patriotism during the Progressive Era are not completely lost
Section I,2. Analyze the consequences of American rule in Puerto Rico, Cuba and the Philippines. Did the citizens prosper? Enjoy freedom? Accept American rule? Comment on the consequences for the United States with regard to the statement made by Eric Foner in the text, “Thus, two principles central to American freedom since the War of Independence – no taxation without representation and government based on the consent of the governed – were abandoned when it came to the nation’s new possessions.
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The Idea of Latin America (pp. 1-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Today I bring to your forefront of thought, the island of Hispaniola. This island is the namesake for the two countries who run the land, the Dominican Republic and Haiti. Both nations hail from a joint introduction into the world market and post-European colonization, but as time progressed, each one had a different outlook to the world stage. The present day Dominican Republic and Haiti are worlds apart on an island which keeps them together. Their culture is separated by the colonial residuals that lay imbedded into their communities. They are on different sides of the spectrum of structural growth due to the resulting outcomes from decades of political ruling and policy making. On one side we have the second independent state of the Americas,
Burns, E. B., & Charlip, J. A. (2007). Latin America: an interpretive history (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Over the course of the history of the United States, specific foreign policies have affected the methods in which the U.S. involves itself around the globe. Specifically, certain policies have affected U.S. involvement in Latin America. It is the intention of this essay to explain the United States foreign policy behind specific doctrines. In order to realize current objectives, this paper will proceed as follows: Part 1 will define the Monroe Doctrine, Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 will concurrently explicitly explain the Roosevelt Corollary, Good Neighbor Policy, and the Nixon Doctrine, discuss how each policy resulted in U.S. involvement in Latin American countries, describe how it was justified by the U.S. government, respectively, and finally, will bring this paper to a conclusion.
In his first paragraph, he states that, “Barricades of ideas are worth more than barricades of stone.” This shows that ideas can be stronger than force. which is why one of his main points is that America must rely on its own culture and ideas, rather than those of other countries. He provides actual evidence as to why the ideas of other nations are inadequate for The America’s. Marti’s quote, “How can the universities produce governors if not a single university in America teaches the rudiments of the art of government, the analysis of element peculiar to the people peoples of America?” is one example of how he supports his argument that only those with a deep understanding of America can properly govern America. Those who are educated in the ways of Europe or the United States cannot comprehend the needs of Latin American countries. Perhaps his greatest strength is that he compels his readers to take pride in their Latin American heritage. At one point in his essay he states, “…for there are no lands in which a man may take greater pride than in our long-suffering American
Mignolo, W. D. (2005). The Idea of Latin America (pp. 1-94). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
All throughout the 20th century we can observe the marked presence of totalitarian regimes and governments in Latin America. Countries like Cuba, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic all suffered under the merciless rule of dictators and military leaders. Yet the latter country, the Dominican Republic, experienced a unique variation of these popular dictatorships, one that in the eyes of the world of those times was great, but in the eyes of the Dominicans, was nothing short of deadly.
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.
LaFeber, Walter. Inevitable Revolutions: The United States in Central America. New York: W.W. Norton, 1984. Print.