In early February 2014 civil unrest, riots, and protests against President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuelan broke out, resulting in an ongoing Venezuelan counterrevolution. These Venezuelan protests have led to a repetition of the opposition-led resistance in order to undermine political stability in the country again. With most of the violent revolutions around the world, there is always a left-wing liberal side and a right-wing conservative side. In this case, there has been violent conflicts over who controls the state, but it is possible to find fault on both sides. Protesters claim that the Venezuelan government is violating their freedom of speech, assembly, and overall expression against the unfair govern of President Maduro (Karimi, 2014). The protesters have the right to express how they feel about their corrupt government and ultimately want to establish nationalism, get their undeniable human rights, and undergo a Democratic Revolution in order to overthrow their current government.
The protesters are demanding that their government have better access to necessary goods, improved security, and a protected freedom of speech (BBC News, 2014). The majority of the protesters blame Venezuela's government for their lack of resources and the oppression of people who have the right to express themselves. Inversely, Maduro and other government officials put blame the opposition party for the security, human rights, and economic problems. Initially, many protesters across Venezuela were students, but some prominent opposition politicians have also joined marches against their corrupt government (Karimi, 2014). The Venezuelan protest have not been peaceful demonstrations of liberal democracy because there have been casualties to bot...
... middle of paper ...
...lne, 2014).
In essence, I believe that initially their campaign against inflation and corruption was in good faith, their campaign did take a turn for the worst and what was once meant to be a peaceful protest is now classified as civil unrest. The student movement’s fight against human rights violation of speech and expression have become twisted and mutated into the oppositional party’s own agenda that fight with lies and racism. The student movement had its focus on helping the lower class and students who cannot afford the inflation of textbooks and school supplies but now due to López and Machado’s efforts they fight for the middle class and middle class rights. Everyone has the right to oppose what they think is unjust and unfair for the public but not all revolutions are what they seem and the oppositional party’s goals do not benefit Venezuela as a whole.
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...
Miguel Melendez’s book, “We Took the Streets” provides the reader with an insightful account into the activities of the Young Lords movement established in the latter years of the 1960s and remained active up until the early seventies. The book’s, which is essentially Melendez’s memoir, a recollection of the events, activities, and achievements of the Young Lords. The author effectively presents to the reader a fascinating account of the formation of the Young Lords which was a group of college students from Puerto Rico who came together in a bid to fight for some of the basic rights. As Melendez sums it up, “You either claim your history or lose authority over your future” (Melendez 23). The quote is in itself indicative of the book’s overall
Chavez leaves a great legacy behind his children that have taken upon themselves to keep on fighting for what their dad believes was to keep helping the immigrant field worker. His foundation has built a lot of training school. The march and strikes are still done today to keep on fighting for injustices done to people. The union is still up. Chavez children run it.
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.
On July 14th, 17189, a shot was heard around the world: the Bastille had been stormed. Propelled by Enlightenment ideas, a rigid class system, and resentment with the monarchy, on this day the French decided to take matters in their own hands. In the next three years, the French overthrew their monarch and established a government and constitution that promised equal rights for all. As the saying goes, history repeats itself. So was the case in Latin America. By 1810, revolutionary fervor had spread to Venezuela. The revolution here was caused by similar reasons. As a colony of Spain, Venezuela did not have a representational government or equality for all its citizens. Peninsulares, or European-born Spaniards, held all the important governmental positions. Like the nobility in France, Peninsulares did not have to pay taxes. Their children (as long as they were also born in Europe), had many educational opportunities. Below the peninsulares were the creoles, or Venezuelans of Spanish descent. Creoles owned much of the land, but they were considered inferior to the peninsulares. Like the bourgeoisie in France, creoles had to pay high taxes and were subject to strict regulation. Creoles were disappointed in what they saw as social and political inequality, and desired to obtain self-representation in the government. At first hesitant, creoles declared their independence amid the weakening of the Spanish crown and the spread of the Enlightenment ideas. The Venezuelan Revolution was influenced by the French Revolution by the spread of Enlightenment ideas, social inequality, the discontent of creoles, and their desire to gain independence from France and form a new democratic government.
Protests have long been a way for people to display their difference in opinion and gain support. One of the many protests against the war that had a powerful effect on public opini...
Since the 1970s, Venezuela has gone from being South America’s richest nation into a nouveau-poor society in search of an identity. Once known as the Saudis of the West, Venezuelans have seen their economic fortunes decline in exact proportion to the general fall in world oil prices. Even so, Venezuela’s many problems were hidden from view until relatively recently, when severity measures heralded the sort of economic crises so painfully familiar to other Latin American countries. Runaway inflation, currency devaluations and even food riots have marked this new phase in Venezuelan history, to which the country is still trying to adjust.
Glusing, Jens. "Venezuela President Maduro Faces Economic Distress and Protests." SPIEGEL ONLINE. Der Spiegel, 26 Feb. 2014. Web. 28 Mar. 2014.
By comparing the two through very direct sentences, he indicates that nonviolence is more powerful than violence while violence leads to “many injuries and perhaps deaths on both sides or there will be total demoralization” (lines 19-21), nonviolence is “supportive and crucial.” Using contrasting diction and connecting violence to images of death and demoralization as well as explaining how it will affect both sides, demonstrates how violence is harmful to everyone. Then by highlighting the power as well as the morality of nonviolence, by using bold statements such as “support” “justice” and “powerful” appeals the the audience and further influences them to advocate and support nonviolence as well as view it as superior to violence due to the powerful diction Chavez used to bring attention to the values of
For thirty-four years Mexico existed under the dictatorship of Porfirio Diaz. During this time Mexico’s industries flourished however the Mexican people remained deep in poverty with little to no opportunities for educational growth. The Mexican revolution was the result of Diaz’s fall from leadership, the peons need for independence, and resulted in a new beginning for Mexico. The Mexican Revolution began due to Porfirio Diaz not allowing anyone to have a voice or say in whatever it is they must do. The people of Mexico were upset because everyone was in poverty because only a select few people actually had money because Porfirio Diaz allowed them to those select few where also the ones in power behind Porfirio. Due to all of the poverty and the poor not having a say in anything they do or have to do it caused an uprising of the peasants led by Emeliano Zapata and Pancho Villa which are greatly known for their effort against the corruption and poverty in Mexico. Although Porfirio Diaz had brought some great things to help Mexico flourish in the industrial form and economical form but for the normal working class citizens that aren’t good friends with Diaz or know him on a personal level are left broke and are left with no way to get away from their financial problems because Diaz doesn’t allow them to make enough money to prosper in anything they do. Diaz’s way of ruling Mexico was so bad that it didn’t even allow the majority of the people of Mexico to get an education because they couldn’t afford it. The only people to benefit from the new rail road systems and factories were the rich hacienda land owners. The rich hacienda owners were also the people who were basically in control over the peons they had control over them as ...
A logical appeal is used in the quotation, ”If, for every violent act committed against us, we respond with nonviolence, we attract people’s support.” It stands to reason that those who commit atrocities will not be supported en masse. However, what commands real respect is the ability to have grace under fire. When one is being attacked without due cause, people will attempt to help the victim, not the aggressor. Therefore, the most logical way to gain support for one’s movement is to turn the other cheek. Chavez also uses a logical argument when he references a recurring theme throughout history. In almost every violent uprising, it is the poor who end up with the most casualties. Therefore, if Chavez uses violent tactics, those he led would be the ones hardest hit, not those who supported the system. For them, it would be economically and strategically infeasible for them to keep up the attack. In Chavez’s reasoning, the most rational course of action is to refrain from
“Revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.” It is believed that any individual who advocates or takes part in a revolution dreams to change not only the world but the ‘man’ itself. These revolutionists dream not only of transforming social structures, institutions, and the system of government but also produce a profound, radical and independent ‘man’.2 With the development of these ideologies, certain methods are partaken in achieving their desired goal. Some will seek the path of pacifism while others proponent a violent revolution when achieving these ideology. Growing up we have been taught that violence cannot solve any problems it only makes it worse. But can one claim that these violent desired to bring revolution to be unethical? If so, imagine how Cuba would be like if it wasn’t for the 26th of July Movement; how colored people would be treated without Malcolm X’s attitude toward racism.
Food shortages, high inflation rates, protest, and violence: one sees these headlines in a Google search of Venezuela today. All around the country, there are long lines to buy simple necessities, like bread and milk. High inflation rates lead to shortages of food supplies, which increase frustration leading to protests in the streets and, sadly, an increase of violence. The protests and violence result from the inability of Venezuelans to provide the most basic human needs for their families. Sky-rocketing inflation rates in Venezuela are the result of Hugo Chavez, the former socialist and revolutionary leader of the country, and his administration. While in power, Chavez was so consumed with fixing the social issues in Venezuela, that other aspects of the country were ignored – like the economy. In 2014, Venezuela is left with a destroyed economy, angry people, and a government that is trying to fix the many issues the country currently faces; although the government is committed to finding solutions, the people of Venezuela do not feel the government is fixing the problems fast enough.
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 advantage of for his own purposes, deploying 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, becoming the most recognized leader of the left worldwide. Throughout the fourteen years that he remained in power, Chávez followed a strategy of introducing a socialist government in Venezuela in stages. According to Enrique Standish in the article titled “Venezuela Finally Turns Communist” it happened in four stages.