Race and Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

Simon Bolivar wrote a political pamphlet in 1812 called the Manifesto of Cartagena where he addressed the citizens of new Grenada about expelling the Spanish from their country; this shows how race and identity factor in to this revolution.

The major events in this revolution like Bolivar attempting to liberate New Grenades centered around freeing these places from Spanish control and uniting the people under one common identity, South Americans, so expelling one race and then subsequently supporting Another. Bolivar’s effort’s led to Colombia becoming a free republic, but this was short lived, for many revolts led to Gran Colombia being increasingly difficult to keep together. Eventually Ecuador and Venezuela seceded from Gran Colombia, once again changing the preexisting notion of racial identity in South America   

   In America, an often talked about issue is Spanish Immigration from Mexico and other parts of Latin America to America. This conflict is based around the issue of whether we should further prevent the Hispanic people from crossing into America with large fences and border control, or should we give them all easier ways of gaining citizenship.

The article I chose was written by Marc A. Thiessen, a reporter for the Washington Post, who writes about President Obama’s recent immigration address and talks about how Obama’s recent move to take unconstitutional executive action on immigration reform will severely hurt Obama’s chances for an actual reform in the future.

The Author also states that 74% percent of the population say that Illegal Immigrants should be allowed citizenship and all the responsibilities that come with it like paying taxes as long as they pass a security check.

  The effect of race on the issue is clear to see. Often times short sighted people who are against freer immigration laws are blinded by some sort of bias or prejudice towards hispanics, and people who identify themselves as hispanic of any oppressed minority, even if they have had Us citizenship all their life, tend to side with freer immigration laws on the Hispanic people.

Race affects national identity and politics in a very big way. People don’t necessarily want to believe it but a big reason why president Obama was elected in first place was because the prospect of having a man of African descent in office for the first time was a great sounding notion. It would mean minorities would have more recognition in the House, it would be a great milestone for the Us and show how far we’ve come since the days when prejudice was an unavoidable part of everyday life, and of course Obama still wouldn’t have been elected if he also didn't prove himself in the election to be a competent leader, and an eloquent public speaker as well.

The article talked about how Obama’s speech would have been an incredibly effective one if he hadn’t of taken unnecessary executive action first. I do agree with this because the basic ideals he’s fighting for are still supported by the American constitution, ideals of freedom and equality for all people. It’s funny that even though our founding fathers stated in the declaration of independence over 200 years ago states that all men are created equal, yet today after how far we've come we’re still debating that simple fact, gay marriage laws are still being passed, immigrants are still being oppressed, and there are more hate groups now in the world than ever before in History. But that being said we have come a very long way, but through mostly unwavering tradition, and fear of the new, it has still stayed around, for no real good reason, for it has done no good and, will cause nothing but pain and suffering despair for the rest of eternity, yes the rest of eternity. No matter how far we come it will always exist, but the sign that I can even say the words “how far we’ve come” is a sign that there’s plenty of hope still left for the future and the present          

How should we remember Toussaint Louverture?

Toussaint Louverture was a man with both inspiring elegance and enigmatic perplexity. Although historians aren't exactly sure whether this man was as heroic and fearless as his appearance implied, it is an undeniable fact that his impact on military strategy, abolishing slavery, and the Haitian political climate is too big to be ignored, even if the impact he made wasn't always a positive one. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered first and foremost for his accomplishments as an abolitionist and a military commander, but one can not forget, when weighing the heroic stature of this man, the terrible atrocities he committed as the new leader of Haiti, making him all in all a figure to be commemorated, but never admired.

Toussaint Louverture was an outstanding military commander, having taught the people of Haiti European and guerrilla warfare, inspired his soldiers with his sheer courage and intelligence, and successfully fought off Napoleon’s forces when he was trying to reinstate slavery to Haiti. A timeline of the Haitian revolution collected from various sources, (Doc A) states that Toussaint “gains a reputation for running an orderly camp and for training his men in both guerrilla tactics and the European shoulder to shoulder style of war”. Toussaint teaching his troops guerrilla tactics was very important in the spreading of the guerrilla form of warfare to the rest of the world. This tactic also spread to the US during the American Revolutionary War and has lasted to this day; so Louverture, by doing this, was further supporting the groundwork for this revolutionary style of warfare, before it was expected for a small European colony like Saint Domingue to do so. Toussaint was also a very courageous and inspiring leader. William Wells Brown states in his book The Black Man, His antecedents, His Genius, and his Achievements 2nd edition (doc F), that Toussaint Louverture “by his superior knowledge of the character of his race, his humanity, generosity, and courage, had gained the confidence of all whom he under his command” showing the almost godlike vision that most of his soldiers held of him. But all these facts would be trivial if Louverture wasn't successful in his efforts. Louverture successfully lead his men to victory, fighting against Napoleon’s forces when he was trying to reinstate slavery, and maintained the freedom of his people.      

Toussaint Louverture was also incredibly successful as a liberator of slaves, as the leader of the only successful slave revolt in history. On a timeline of the Haitian Revolution (doc A) it states that Toussaint in 1794 “The Revolutionary government in France under Robespierre abolishes slavery in France and all it’s colonies; Toussaint and his troops stop their revolt and now support the French”. This is a very important accomplishment because this revolution disproves the point that is still being made about slavery, that if slavery was so horrendous why didn’t they fight back? This revolution proves that they did indeed fight back, and their revolt laid the foundation for the liberation of slaves in other countries such as the civil war in America. This accomplishment from Toussaint almost overshadows the atrocities he committed as leader of Saint Domingue.

As leader of Saint Domingue, Toussaint Louverture committed several atrocities on his people that make it so he can never truly be called a hero. Louverture, during the revolution, fought long and hard to stop the feverishly long hours of plantation work for his fellow Haitians, but even after he worked so hard to abolish this, Toussaint continued to support plantation work in a blatant hypocrisy to his earlier views on the matter. Toussaint stated on November 25th in his 25th proclamation on the state of his newly formed nation (doc D) “as soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantation according to his strength in some useful work” after all the work Toussaint did to finally end slavery in Haiti, he’s treating his liberated people as if he sees them only as the very thing he worked to prove they were not, property. But the true measure of a man is not found in his well written speeches, or his sense of politics, but instead what he does in his final moments, when the the persona he shows to the rest of the world dissolves, and he’s left with nothing more than his own sense of morality, no matter how twisted it may seem. Toussaint Louverture's final moments as leader of his country, hinges more on sadistic than heroic, in Madison Smartt Bell’s biography of Toussaint Louverture (doc E) he states that Louverture “ordered the mutineer regiments on parade and summed certain men to blow their brains out” no man who can ever be appropriately labeled heroic can also be held guilty of such a heinous act. Toussaint promised to protect his people, to liberate them, to love them, but instead betrayed them, and did on to them things that even the most vindictive plantation owner wouldn't attempt, and for this Louverture can never be a true hero and never can be truly admired.                                         

Even though Louverture was by no means a good man, his revolutionary accomplishments certainly made him a great one. Like Napoleon if Toussaint had perished before his final moments as leader historians would probably have a far better opinion of his moral stature than is currently perceived, but with the knowledge that we have now, Toussaint stands as an extremely complex figure. Toussaint did far too much good not to be honored, but also far too much evil not to be reviled, making him one of the most intriguing figures in recent history.    

The Congress of Vienna

on the 4th of may 1814 a conference was held with representatives from all of Europe’s major powers to discuss what would be done now that Napoleon’s attempts at domination had finally been thwarted. The topic that we’re discussing today “what should people do when their power is threatened” was one of the most important dilemmas that the representatives at the the congress of Vienna had to face. The kings and queens of the European nations often asked themselves this question when under the constant threat of Napoleon, should they surrender and let Napoleon take one more piece of Europe for himself, or should they stay and fight for the continuation of their rule? The dilemmas we had to deal with in class where similar to this, we were broken into groups, given three solutions to a problem that was addressed at the congress of Vienna, and asked to choose which one we thought would fit best for Metternich and the people of Austria. The experiment helped us understand the mindset of a representative at the congress of Vienna trying to make the best decisions for his patron country, and also helped us to better understand the essential question, what would our country do to maintain their power in Europe?    

another major issue that was addressed was how to properly maintain a balance of power in Europe (or how to make sure that no particular nation rised above the rest). To accomplish this, Metternich wanted to Bring French territory back to the way it was prior to the revolutions and hence reduce their threat. To help further maintain France’s balance of power, the representatives increased the territory of surrounding nations such as Prussia and the Netherlands so they could serve as barrier against France forces. This plan was particularly enticing to Metternich because it ensured more territory to Austria as condolences for Frances attacks on their soil. The Congress of Vienna also attempted to maintain this balance by appointing King Louis the XVI’s brother Louis the XVIII as Napoleon’s replacement for the ruler of France. The representatives at the congress thought that by appointing another monarch from the Bourbon line the threat to their power would be significantly diminished for rulers from the Bourbon family have consistently refrained from revolting against foreign powers. These decisions led to Europe more or less reverting back to square one, a Bourbon was once again in power, the French territory was significantly diminished, and it seemed that practically none of the causes that kick-started the revolution in the first place had been achieved. However a balance of power was restored to Europe, which meant that no drastic changes were going to be made from the traditions they had become accustomed too, but instead the people could sleep safer knowing that no tyrants like Napoleon could rise from the woodwork.

  The people at the congress of Vienna made short sighted decisions because Napoleon had worn the patience of the European officials so much, and they were so afraid of another revolution, that they were willing to do anything to get France back to the way it was before. I suppose that’s why the congress of Vienna made the positively inept decision of appointing the brother of the man whose sheer incompetence started the revolution in the first place as the new ruler of France. The primary objective of the revolution, the purpose that all those countless fallen soldiers and executed civilians thought they were fighting for, was to end the reign of king Louis the XVI and the Bourbons and usher in a new line of rulers who had the common folk's best interests at heart. and to honor this objective the congress of Vienna decided to appoint not just another member of the bourbon line, but King Louis the XVI’s brother. You can imagine the outcry in the streets of France the day that a Bourbon once again sat on the royal throne after the people fought so hard to keep him out of it. I think the best course of action would’ve been to instigate a new democracy in France, but if that proved to substantial of a change for the Monarchs of Europe then perhaps a new more benevolent leader that would listen to the people’s demands, anything other than the sibling of arguably the most hated man in French history. But the European monarchs would never agree to sharing their power through a democracy, because they would no longer have absolute control over their countries and their subjects. Power is like a rapid current, you dip your pinky in for a second and then suddenly you’re in over your head, but what the representatives at the congress of Vienna needed to learn was that sacrificing absolute power is a small price to pay for the continued welfare and happiness of your people.