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
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...
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.
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.
"The Cambridge History of Latin America." Google Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 May 2014. <http://books.google.com/books?id=3NiCQFfSGIkC&pg=PA313&lpg=PA313&dq=carlos+chavez+obertura+republicana&source=bl&ots=Jp3wnnLfmu&sig=Aa-BUEPyHXZhKj67mkSB5UsHylE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N9R2U-fsBoK_oQSWr4D4AQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwADge#v=onepage&q=carlos%20chavez%20obertura%20republicana&f=false>.
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...
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.
In 1961, Fidel Castro, Cuba’s dictator, introduced the Marxist-Leninist ideology to the Cuban people, “by grafting it onto the images, symbols, values, and concepts of Cuban nationalism” (Medin 53). This ideology was promoted through what Medin describes as a world where there are no "in-betweens," but instead only "good and evil", and any straying from that perceived norm was seen as counter-revolutionary and must be removed so they wouldn’t corrupt the process of developing a “homogenous revolutionary social consciousness” (Morales-Diaz 1). “The notion of ‘counter-revolutionaries’ and the connection to capitalist nations epitomizes the revolutionary government's contempt for anyone who is not on the side of the communist revolution" (Medin 40). In that way, Castro was creating enemies of any Cubans who weren’t up to his standards. According to Arenas, this new idea of unifying Cuba came at the expense of the persecution of a large segment of the population an...
White, Robert E. 2013. "After Chávez, a Chance to Rethink Relations With Cuba". The New
Jose Chavez is a 25-year-old Latino man who served in the Afghanistan war. Jose was born in Montebello, Ca and later moved to Lancaster, California in his pre-teen years due to the divorce of his parents. Jose grew up as a normal child as any with the circumstances he was given of a divorced family. Jose lived with his Dad, Step-Mother, sister, step-sister and nephew in Lancaster, Ca. In high school Jose ran into some issues with school performance not due to lack of intelligence consequently resulting from the divorce of his parents. Jose’s mother lived in Walnut, Ca whom he only saw every other weekend. Jose’s biological mother was an overprotective mother growing up who would coddle him due to being the only boy, Juan has three older sisters. As in many families there were conflicts amongst
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
Chavez defines a fine line between moral and immoral causes. Explaining that "nonviolence supports you if you a moral and just cause" implying that violence is only for those with false causes. That single statement turns anyone who doesn't believe in nonviolence into the bad guy. Further explaining that violence causes "injuries, deaths, … and total demoralization" which is unattractive to the American population. A violent offensive only
One such way Chavez counters the need for violence is by using ethos and pathos. By starting off with talking about the legend of Dr. King Chavez establishes himself as an expert on Civil Rights and how nonviolence is the course of action that people need to take. This creates the credibility, or ethos needed for Chavez to
Filmmaker Oliver Stone embarked on a journey across the Latin American continent pursuant to the filling of gaps left by mainstream media about the social and political movements in the southern continent. Through a series of interviews he conducted with Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Cristina Kirchner and former president Nėstor Kirchner of Argentina, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Fernando Lugo of Paraguay, Lula da Silva of Brazil, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Raúl Castro of Cuba, Stone was able to compare firsthand information from the leaders themselves with that reported and published by the media (“Synopsis,” n.d.). It gives light to the measures these leaders had to take in order to initiate change in their respective countries, even if their public identities were at stake. Several instances in the film showed the mismatch between these two sources, pointing at the US government’s interests for greatly influencing the media for presenting biased, groundless views.
In Chavez’s article, he explicates that throughout history, violent revolutions have been more harmful for the poor and workers than beneficial. He employs this information in order to force the workers to cognize that violence should not be utilized because it will result in adverse outcomes. Chavez employs logic and history to allow his audience to understand that violence could become fatal for protesters. Chavez hopes to motivate his audience to condemn violent methods. He attempts to enlighten the workers about the futility of utilizing vehement methods as opposed to peaceful
“The Killing Machine: Che Guevara, From Communist Firebrand to Capitalist Brand.” Llosa, Alvaro Vargas. The New Republic. July 11, 2005.