Tradition of Dictatorial Rule in Latin America
Dictator: 1 a: a person granted absolute emergency power b: one holding complete autocratic control c: one ruling absolutely and often oppressively.
If there is one thing that Latin America has in common, its the overwhelming amount of dictatorial rule since its separation from Spain. Almost all the Latin American countries have had significant changes in rule, however, they are basically smooth transitions. Rulers come in and out of countries without so much as a whisper of opposition. However, there are a few countries out there who have had significant upheavals and resistance to change in power.
Despite the number of different rulers throughout Latin American history, it would be unfair to categorize them all together, the rulers are all significantly different. They all have different nicknames according to their actions or hook into politics, anywhere from "The Liberator" and "The Benefactor" to "The Shaggy One" (Hamill 8). They come from different backgrounds; upper-class, middle-class, military, working-class and others. They are all significantly different, yet they all have the ability to persuade and unite a significant amount of people together to make a change.
The tradition of dictatorial rule came from a long history of resistance against a larger form of government. It becomes a cultural aspect in a sense that the dictator becomes the caudillo, or national boss. It is, in a sense, the head chief of the village. The loyalty is traditionally given to a local leader, a headman, not a whole nation. It was easier to follow the bandits or patriots than to follow some unseen government. These leaders are successful in their attempts to dominate. They have the "...
... middle of paper ...
...nd more countries brought forth rulers who have managed to keep their country relatively peaceful, and yet there are still some revolutionists who sneak into power and create all sorts of disturbances not only for Latin America, but for countries around the world. Latin America is still a young continent and still has issues to iron out. It is difficult to say where, exactly Latin America is heading as far as political power goes.
Works Cited:
Chasteen, John. Ed(?) and Trans. The Contemporary History of Latin America. North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1993.
Ford, Guy Stanton, Ed. Dictatorship in The Modern World. Place..: University of Minnesota Press, 1939. 178-214.
Hamill, Hugh. Dictatorship in Spanish America. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965.
Merriam Websters Collegiate Dictionary. 10th Edition. Springfield, Mass: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1996.
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.
The leadership in South America compared to the leadership in Mexico was quite different. But in some areas, where they were compared were very similar. In both places, a Revolution had begun. Starting with how they are both similar, Mexico and South America both wanted independence. They wanted to be free from the old fashioned ways of life, to start fresh and bring in new ideas to their people. In South America, their head leadership consisted of so very popular men named Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin. These men were both wealthy, Simon was a Venezuela Creole, which is a Spaniard born in Latin America, and Jose was a great liberator, or a person who sets people free from imprisonment. In some ways these two men worked together to gain their independence but then again not at all. In 1811, Simon had gained its independence from Spain. A major struggle, that was only the beginning. Simon suffered from many defeats and was exiled twice. But he never gave up hope. In a turning point, Simon led over 20,000 soldiers into Columbia and took a victory from the Spanish Bogota. By 1821 he had won Venezuelan independence. From here he marched into South Ecuador where he met Jose. Simon’s ways of gaining independence was only the beginning of South Americas revolution.
In conclusion, the liberal era wasn’t good for Latin America because it created economic devastation in most regions. Liberal leaders had promising changes, but they failed because they didn’t had the resources or allies. They fail to create political communities and equal citizens. Liberals attempt to break the colonial patterns and follow European trends, but Latin America societies were not ready for these reforms.
Crassweller, Robert D. Trujillo: The life and times of a Caribbean dictator. New York: Macmillan.1966.
of the wolves and finds that they are more than the savage and merciless hunters
people decide that they want a dictatorship. If I was a ruler during the period of the
Peeler, John A. Latin American Democracies. Chapel Hill, NC and London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1985. Print.
The historian Ronn Pineo wrote “Beginning in the 1980s nearly all of Latin America began to take part in a great experiment, the adoption of capitalist free market economic policies.” This great experiment began with the promotion of democracy and free market that promised a better future for Latin America. Neoliberalism, the economic ideology that promotes free-market capitalism, laid the foundation for many of the US military interventions and economic policies that caused a dramatic transformation of Latin America. This promise of a “democratic” government came from a policy initiative labeled as polyarchy. Polyarchy is “ a system in which a small group governs and mass participation in decision making is limited to choosing leaders in elections that are carefully managed by competing elites” (Lecture: Polyarchy and Resistance).
You may not know any bigots, you think “I don’t hate black people, so I’m not racist”, but you benefit from racism. There are certain privileges and opportunities you have that you do not even realize because you have not been deprived in certain ways. Racism, institutional and otherwise, does not always manifest itself in a way that makes it readily identifiable to onlookers, victims, or perpetrators; it is not always the outward aggression typically associated with being a hate crime. Racial microaggressions are a type of perceived racism. They are more subtle and ambiguous than the more hostile or overt expressions of racism, such as racial discrimination (CITE). Microaggressions are everyday verbal, visual, or environmental hostilities, slights, insults, and invalidations or mistreatment that occurs due to an individual’s race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc. (CITE). The concept of racial microaggressions has been around since the 1970s, but much of the current research is rooted in the work of two professors, Jack Dovidio, Ph.D. (Yale University) and Samuel Gaertner, Ph.D. (University of Delaware), and their explanations of aversive racism. Their research has its foundation in the idea that many well-intentioned Whites consciously believe in and profess equality, but unconsciously act in a racist manner, particularly in ambiguous situations (CITE).
... In addition to being powerful, his ruthless murders made him a dangerous man too. This specific case in Latin American history comes to show how economic “stability” does not always mean happiness and wealth. The Dominican Republic’s economy was stable, but all the wealth belonged to one man, Trujillo. A Nation’s wealth in the hands of one man only means that the Nation’s safety and life-force also rest in his hands.
After gaining independence from Spain and Portugal in the 1820s, Latin American colonies had a lot ahead of them. They had to establish their own governments and economies in the midst of recovering from wars. Founding these was going to be difficult as they had been under colonial rule for a long time and there was a lot of unrest in the colonies. Although it would have been difficult there was great potential for a strong economy and democracy. This potential stemmed from a few things. A strong economy would have been possible because Latin America is rich with minerals, gold, and silver. Democracy also seemed attainable, in part from the ideas that started independence movements, including enlightenment ideas and the successful revolution in the United States. A democracy appeared to be very possible but there were also concerns that the newly freed colonies would struggle to establish a strong government, these concerns were addressed by Simon Bolivar in The Jamaica Letter.
Gibson, J. William. "The New War on Wolves." Los Angeles Times 8 Dec. 2011, sec. A: 25. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 24 Jan. 2014.
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.
Much G. L., 2004, Democratic Politics in Latin America: New Debates and Research Frontiers, Annual Reviews