Race Issues in Latin America

The unit that we have just recently finished in class was about the Latin American Revolutions, and was based off of the questions, Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race?, and how are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? These questions are important to think about when learning about the Latin American Revolutions because they help us look at how race affected and played a role in each of the  revolutions. To begin learning about the Latin American revolutions so that we could answer our essential question we split into groups and each group had one of the three revolutions, either Brazil, Gran Colombia, or Mexico. We then color coded a pie chart to look at the race populations, and then created a timeline of the revolution that our group was assigned.

This is the pie chart that we color coded as part of our lesson,

My group was assigned Brazil, and looking at a summary of the events that happened in the time period of the revolution we compiled a timeline of some of the important events. This is my timeline for Brazil,

Two similarities that we found between Brazil and the other revolutions was that they all revolted against the country that controlled them, and the leaders of the revolts created strong armies that help them to succeed. One difference that we found was, Brazil had help from other countries which were Spain and Portugal and the others did not. Another difference between the revolution was that Gran Colombia conquered many other cities of Latin America, and the other two revolution in Brazil and mexico only conquered the country that they were revolting against. All three of these revolutions had their differences, however race was an issue to all three. For mexico the leader of the revolution was openly saying that he was fighting racial equality, and they had the lower class people fighting in their revolution. For Brazil, their new king was discriminating against who could keep government positions and who could not, and that is why they revolted.  lastly, for Gran Colombia, the leader, Bolivar who was a creole, was advocating discrimination based on birthplace, and the people were interested in dumping the social status structure. People who were of low social class were fighting to get rid of the Castas system.  

Today judgments are still made all the time about races in our society. People create stereotypes for specific races, and believe that any  person of that race has a quality based on that stereotype, for example, someone may think someone is very smart or very poor just based on their race. One specific example of a race issue in society today is when a cop shot a boy who was dark skinned, because he thought he was suspicious looking, and made conclusions based on his race. I believe that it is important that we address the race issues in society today because everyone should be treated fairly and equally no matter what race they may be.  

Toussiant Louverture; A Liberator of Slaves

A leader is a person who commands a group, organization, or even a country, however they are also much more than just that. A leader is someone who  is looked up to and acts as a role model , and sets examples for those that they lead. A good leader possess the qualities of moral leadership, and honesty, as well as compassion, commitment, and confidence. A leader can be anywhere from the president who has the job to command everyone in the country, to a parent or relative who’s job it is to be someone who can be looked up to as a role model, to set good examples for their loved ones. Toussaint Louverture is a historical figure who can also be thought of as a leader. Toussaint Louverture was born in the 1740’s , and was once a young slave of the large Caribbean island, Saint Domingue, now known as Haiti. After he had been freed from slavery, Toussaint Louverture lead the Haitian revolution with the goal of abolishing slavery.  He encouraged slaves of Saint Domingue to fight for their freedom, and his good leadership skills helped Saint Domingue into gaining their independence. Being a military commander, and the ruler of Saint Domingue are two aspects of Toussaint Louverture's legacy, however being remember as a liberator of slaves is the most important because without his leadership the slaves wouldn’t have been freed, and Saint Domingue may not have gained its independence.

The main aspect of Toussaint’s legacy that he should be remember him for was being a liberator of slaves. While Toussaint may have been switching back and forth between the two sides of the revolution, he always represented the side that supported the abolition of slavery. In the Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue is states that in 1791 Toussaint Louverture played the role as a doctor to the troops during the slave revolt as well as the commander of a small detachment of slave soldiers.( Document A) He was leading the slaves to fight for their freedom. However, the document also states that in 1794 the french government abolished slavery in France and all of its colonies, and because of this Toussaint and all the troops in which he was leading stopped their revolt and supported the french. ( Document A) Toussaint switched from revolting against the french, to supporting the french because they had now abolished slavery. Toussaint was doing whatever he could to lead the slaves to their freedom, and when Napoleon sent 21,000 soldiers to the island to reinstate slavery after the slaves had already been freed he had to stand up for what he believed was right. In Toussaint Louverture’s “Letter to the french Directory” he states, “Could men who have once enjoyed the benefits of liberty look on calmly while it is taken from them!...But today when they have left it, if they had a thousand lives they would sacrifice them all rather than to be subjected again to slavery.” (Document B) The people have already been freed, and they would do anything to prevent slavery from being restored to Saint Domingue. They won't just stand there watching their freedom that they just earned being taken right from them, and they are willing to fight to the death to prevent that. Another reason in which Toussaint Louverture should most importantly be remembered as a liberator of slaves is because he helped to write the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801. Toussaint assembled and headed the commission that created this document that clearly stated the rights of the freed slaves. the constitution states, “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and french.” (Document C ) In this document Toussaint is making it clear that every man, whether they are freed slaves or not has equal rights and freedom. Because Toussaint did everything in his power to fight with the slaves of Saint Domingue to gain their independence, he really should be remembered as a liberator of slaves. While he was also a military commander, he cared more about freeing the slaves than he did actually fighting with the french, and his overall goal was to abolish slavery in Saint Domingue which is why being a liberator of slaves is the most important aspect of his life  that he should be remembered for.

Toussaint  Louverture may have be a leader of the slaves in fighting for their freedom, but he also held the leadership position of being a military commander. While it may not be the most significant and important part of his legacy it is also something that he should be remembered for. Toussaint had a large impact on the success of the Haitian revolution. In a Timeline of Abolition in Saint Domingue, it says that in 1792 as a military commander toussaint gained a reputation for running an orderly camp and for training his men in both guerrilla tactics and the European shoulder to shoulder style. ( Document A ) Toussaint was a well known intelligent military leader who prepared his men to use an ambush and surprise technique that would be unexpected by the opponent, as well as the tactic of their opponent so they would be prepared for anything.  One example of this guerilla style tactic which was unfamiliar to the french is in an excerpt from The black Man, His Antecedents, Genius, and His Achievements, when it states, “The French however [landed], but they found nothing but smoldering ruins, where once stood splendid cities. Toussaint and his generals at once abandoned the towns and betook themselves to the mountains, those citadels of freedom in st. Domingo where the blacks have always proved too much for the whites. ” ( Document F) Toussaint and his army had burned down the city, and retreated to the mountains causing the French army to follow so that when they arrived they could use the guerrilla style warfare, which was not at all expected by the French. Toussaint Louverture had great military skills and used them to benefit him and his army making him a very successful military leader. Toussaint was a strong leader who was also very tough for when his own nephew rebelled against him, he knew that he had to treat him as he would any other person. In an expert from Toussaint Louverture: A biography, it states, “ Toussaint ordered Moyse’s arrest and had him confined in the fort of Port De paix...Brought before a firing squad, Moyse himself gave the order to fire.” ( Document E ) Because the slaves were now freed and no longer could be owned to work the plantations, Toussaint had to force the former plantation slaves to do the labor, and when the Moyse who was the leader of the Northern department started a revolt against Toussaint and his new policies, Toussaint knew he had to do whatever needed to be done to stop the revolts. All of Toussaint great military achievements were all done in an attempt to gain the independence of saint Domingue as well as to keep the independence of the freed slaves that lived there, which is why he should be remembered as a military leader.

Lastly, Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as  a ruler of Saint Domingue, which was also a leadership position that he held. As well as being a way to show that he was a liberator of slaves, The Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801 that was signed by Toussaint, shows that he held an important position in the government of the nation. Title Viii: Of the Government, Article 28 states, “The constitution nominate citizen Toussaint-Louverture, Chief General of the army of Saint-Domingue and… he is entrusted the direction thereof for the remainder of his glorious life.” ( Document C) This is saying that until his death Toussaint shall be the ruler of Saint Domingue. As a ruler Toussaint tried his best to protect the rights of his citizens, and he also took risks to pursue what he believed was right for everyone. In Toussaint Louverture’s Proclamation, 25 November 1801, he proclaims, “Any individual… tending to incite sedition [actions against the authority of the nation]  shall be brought before a court martial [military court] and be punished in conformity with the law.” and, “Vagabond cultivators arrested… shall be taken to the commander of the quarter, who will have them sent to the gendarmerie [local police] on their plantation.”  (Document D) Throughout this proclamation Toussaint is trying to keep order to the nation and to do so he must enforce laws and punishments if  those laws are broken. He has the best interest for the greater population in mind, and he is willing to be unpopular and disliked as a leader and as a person to do what he feels is the right thing to do. Both the Constitution of 1801, and Louverture’s proclamation of 1801 are trying to get the same message across, they both have the same purpose, however, the constitution wasn't working and people werent following it so, Louverture felt as though he had to word it more strongly and harshly to get his point across better to the citizens that he was ruling. His proclamation was a more harsh way of saying what was being stated in the constitution. While Toussaint may have come across as a mean and harsh ruler, he was doing what he was for the benefit of Saint Domingue, and for the citizens of it. Toussaint Louverture should be remembered as a ruler because even though he may have not been well liked, he was trying to keep everything in order in saint Domingue and he tried his best to avoid violence.    

Toussaint Louverture possess many of the qualities that make up a great leader. He had moral leadership, toughness, determination, commitment and confidence, and he showed these values through his leadership positions as a liberator of slaves, a military commander, and the Ruler of saint Domingue. While Toussaint should be remembered as being a liberator of slaves and a military commander it is truly most important that we remember him as a liberator of slaves, for he led the slaves to fight and win their freedom, something that couldn't have been done without him, and is one of the most important parts of his impact on Saint Domingue.  

Success or Failure

We recently did a unit about the revolutions of 1830 and 1848. To answer our essential question, and decide whether or not each revolution was a failure or not, we split into groups and were each assigned one of the revolutions. After reading an introduction as well as primary source documents about our assigned revolution we answered a few questions such as, where and when the revolution took place, the goals, opponent and outcome of the revolution, and whether it was a success or a failure. Then after learning about our revolution we made a survey with a few questions for our classmates to complete. My group's revolution was the Hungarian Revolution of 1848.

The Hungarian Revolution took place in Austria in 1848. The goals of this revolution was to make Hungary an independent country from Austria,and to write a constitution to protect national rights. "Our task is to found a happier future on the brotherhood of all the races in Austria For a union enforced by bayonets and police spies let us substitute the enduring bond of a free constitution.” In this quote the author is telling the Austrians his ideas, and what the goals of the revolution are.The nationalists of the revolution were led by Louis kossuth. The opponents of these nationalists were the Austrian empire, Russian troops and Metternich. The outcome of this revolution was that thier gain was temporary until Austrian troops regained controll of Vienna and Prague. With Russia's help they destroyed Budapest, many were imprisoned, killed or exiled."We dissolve the Diet by this our Decree; so that after the publication of our present Sovereign Rescript, the Diet has immediately to close its Session." This quote describes the events of the revolution, and the outcome in which it caused. Overall the revolution was a partial success and a partial failure. It was partially a failure because their gain only lasted temporarily. However it was also a partial success because they defeated Budapest. Our survey asked questions about many of these ideas, and overall the class learned from it, for the majority of the class got most of the questions correct. this is one of the questions that everyone answered correctly. the question asked, “who led the Hungarian nationalists in Budapest?” the answer to this question was, Louis Koussouth.

This next question was  a true or false question that asked that stated, “The declaration of Hungary was unanimously adopted by the Hungarian parliament.” The correct answer was true and all but one person answered this question correctly.

I think that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were all complete failures as historians have concluded. Out of all the revolutions, only one, the Decembrist revolt, was a complete failure. Each of the other revolutions were mostly successful and only partially a failure, or mostly a failure but also partially a success. one revolution that was partially a success was the 1830 French revolt. when king Louis xviii died his younger brother, Charles x , inherited the throne, however the citizens disagreed with his beliefs. Charles the x fled, and Louis Philippe was now king. Louis phillipe got along well with the citizens and he did a lot to benefit his people, for example expanding suffrage. the goal to expand the rights to vote were achieved, however only for some people, not all.  Another revolution that was also a partial success was the Frankfurt assembly. delegates at the assembly debated whether germany should be a republic or a monarch, and whether or not to include Austria in the united German state. Germany became united, however Prussia’s Frederick William refused to take the throne.  Overall, historians believe that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were all together failures, however many of them each had some positive outcomes.  

Are Traditions Always Best?

In class we have just finished covering the topic of the major political ideologies in the 19th century. An ideology is  a system of ideas or ideals, especially one that forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy. The three ideologies are liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism.  We started off by creating our own definitions for the words, Liberal, conservative, and nationalism. Then in small groups we made a one minute long project about one of the ideologies based on a document that we read on that ideology. The purpose of this activity was to show that each ideology had a different impact on social and political action.

My group did our presentation on liberalism. we used chatter pix to create our video, having images of john Locke, and Adam smith , two British liberal philosophers explaining what liberalism is , and its impact on social and political action during the 19th century.

This project help to define liberalism because it explained that liberals believe in freedom and equality for humans, and that instead of following tradition that strive to create new systems that benefit the society. We also explained through our presentation that liberals believed in a meritocracy, or a system in which men were rewarded for their hard work, and not their social class. The theory of the invisible hand, and god given natural rights were explained in the video. Liberalism influenced social action because liberals wanted to get rid of all social classes, overall getting rid of hierarchy. Liberalism influenced political action because liberals wanted to make the government more equal so that everyone had a say in how they were being governed.

The other two ideologies of this time period were conservatism and nationalism. Conservatives believed in not changing the systems of the government. Conservatism impacted social and political action because conservatives believed in keeping a monarchy, and not changing the social classes. they didn't want to change the way that the government was run because monarchs wanted to stay in power, in fear of what may happen if they change from their traditional ways. They feared that  chaos and bloodshed would be an outcome of trying to change, and in their opinions monarchy was the best was to run the government. Nationalism also impacted social and political action because they promoted the unification of people of the same culture, language and history, and  they didn't want to have any foreign rulers running their government. unlike how Italy and Germany both were countries that weren't under one single rule, but they had the independence of small states, nationalists believed in having one unified country.

Napoleon's Impact

Napoleon Bonaparte was born on August 15th 1769, on the Mediterranean island of Corsica. He started his military career at the age of nine, and after he was commissioned into the artillery, he would soon be a great military leader who promoted education, and shaped his country's laws, but also plunged the world into war. After watching the video, All You Need to Know About Napoleon Bonaparte, we learned that Napoleon had conquered Italy, Australia, Holland, Belgium, Egypt, Sweden, Spain, and many other countries.  During his military career Napoleon had greatly impacted the social, economic and political systems of Europe.

Conquering and having control of all of Europe except for Great Britain ,Napoleon left a big impact when in power. The first impact that napoleon left in Europe was on the social system. He changed the way in which the countries were ordered, they were all now a meritocracy, or the holding of power by people selected on the basis of their ability. He also abolished serfdom, and created a society where more people had rights to property and access to education. Napoleon also left an impact on the economic systems of Europe. He controlled prices, encouraged new industry, and built roads and canals to expand trade. However, when conquering the countries that he did he often looted them of money and expensive possessions, therefore leaving a negative economic impact. Lastly, napoleon left an impact on the political systems of Europe. Because Napoleon had either direct or indirect control over almost all of Europe, the previous rulers of those countries now had less control, and the members of nobility had lost their political power.  According to  Madame De Stael, Napoleon taking over rule of these countries wasn't a positive thing. She says, “His system was to encroach daily upon France’s liberty and Europe’s independence .” She believes that his system was just good at all, but it was just getting in the way and intruding on how France and all of Europe wanted to rule themselves. On the other hand Marshal Michel Ney calls Napoleon an august emperor, and believes that he has left a positive impact. he says, “the times are gone when people were governed by suppressing their rights.” He believes that Napoleons system had brought more rights to the people in which he is ruling, and leaving a positive impact on society. In, The Lost Voices of Napoleon Historians article, John C. Ropes writes, “ Let us be equally frank in acknowledging his great qualities, -- his untiring industry, his devotion to the public service, his enlightened views of government and legislation, his humanity.” He also believes that the impact left by napoleon was positive. Ropes thinks that Napoleon was a great leader, and was devoted to helping society.

Overall, there were both positive and negative aspect of all the impacts the Napoleon had left on Europe. I think that his impact on the political systems was negative, because he changed the way that the government was set up , and made it so the rulers now had less power over their own countries. Also, I believe that Napoleon’s impact on the Economic systems were positive. this is because he had greatly expanded trade by building new roads and canals, and overall helped the economic systems of Europe. Lastly, I think that Napoleon left both a negative and positive impact on the political systems of Europe. These impacts were negative because he had abolished monarchy, and had completely changed the way the the governments of the countries were run. While he was introducing a new way of ruling, he had also gotten rid of the way that most countries were used to and comfortable with running their government, and could often be hard to switch  back to a monarchy if that is what they wanted to do. However these impacts were also positive because he had increased the rights for citizens, and because of the abolishment of monarchy citizens now had more of a say in society.


Napoleon Primary Source Readings: http://www.edline.net/files/_5HGnA_/24e6ed80deb5ecaa3745a49013852ec4/Unit_3A_Activity_1_Primary_Source_Readings.pdf

Lost Voices of Napoleonic Historians:
http://www.napoleon-series.org/research/biographies/c_historians.html

I Have Too Much Chocolate!

In History class we began to learn about capitalism, socialism, and communism, and in order to do so we did an activity during class with Hershey Kisses. Each student got three pieces of candy except for two who got ten. This unequal distribution of the candy was to show that not everyone has equal wealth, and few are much richer than others. We then played rock paper scissors, and every time someone lost the game they would lose a piece of candy, and every time they won they would gain a piece of candy. Once you had no more candy you would sit down and stop playing, but you couldn't stop playing unless you did lose all your candy. Those who had a lot of candy didn't want to keep playing because they feared they would lose it all if they did. I lost all my chocolates in the first three games that i played, but from watching the other students continue to play after I was out , I could tell that they were being selfish with their candy, and they didn't want to lose any of it. After only a few students still remained, the chocolate was then collected and redistributed so that everyone in the class had an equal amount, three candies. Those who were “poor” or had no chocolates were happy that now they had some, but those who were “rich” or had a lot of candy, were now upset, and felt like the redistribution was unfair because they now had less than they did before. The purpose of this activity was to chow Marx’s theory of redistribution, to create a classless society. He believed that people wouldn't be selfish, and they could all agree to have their money redistributed so that everyone was equally wealthy.

Like our teacher wanted to help us by redistributing the candy so that we were all equal, Karl Marx, and Adam smith both wanted to help the poor, but they had two very different approaches. Marx believed in Capitalism, socialism, and communism, and that everyone would start off with their own amount of money and there would be a freedom of competition, which would them result in an unequal distribution of wealth. Therefore, the government would have to take ownership, and then redistribute to everyone, which would result in a classless society where the government is no longer needed. Smith believed something very different. He developed a theory called The Invisible Hand. Smith said that if society was left alone, they would fix the problem themselves. They would try to get the most for their money, creating competition between businesses, the “invisible hand” will push people to the better deals. Smith thought that if people would just stop trying to regulate the government it would regulate itself. Because of this competition there would be lower prices on goods, and more options for the poor, and therefore they will be able to afford more. Businesses will be forced to lower their prices, or they will fail to make profit. Marx didn't think people would be selfish with their money and that they would be willing to share so that everyone was equal, whereas Smith believed the opposite, that people would be selfish with their money, and because of that the economy would regulate itself.

In my opinion , based the activity that we did in class, I believe that while Smith’s theory may not be perfect, it would definitely be more effective than Marx’s theory, especially in today’s society. If the government were to collects and redistribute everything, it wouldn't be as easy as it was for us to do so with the Hershey kisses. People would protest, and not agree to give up their money to share it with other people who didn't earn it like that person did. I believe that this int a fair way to help the poor either because it is taking away from someone else.  Letting the economy regulate itself is a more fair and effective way to help the poor. If the government  were to get involved and try to fix situations by giving everyone equal wealth it would most likely make bigger problems, so by not getting involved and letting things play out on their own it avoids this risk of bigger problems developing. By natural competition between businesses the poor will be able to have more price options for the same product and therefore they will be able to afford what they need. Smith’s Ideas are a way to help the poor without affecting anyone else. His theory is much like they way that our country run today however, there truly isnt a perfect way to fix these problems  Overall, both Marx and Smith had ideas of ways to fix economic problems and help the poor, and both of these theories were very different and had both positive and negative aspects within them.

Choosing the Mill Life

During industrialization in America mill owners did all that they could to hire workers, especially young girls to come work at their mills, and doing so wasn't always the easiest thing. Unlike Britain, the U.S. didn't have an abundant supply of cheap labor, land was plentiful and people preferred life on the farms. Because of this lack of workers willing to come and work at the mills, industrialists look to change the way that manufacturing was viewed, they proved to families that there were many more positives of working at the mills than negatives. In order to do this the Lowell Experiment was created.

The Lowell Experiment was an industrial project that focused on the positives of industrialization, while trying to avoid the negative ones. This experiment was a system that would be used to convince girls to come to work at the mills, and it was based on a paternal system that emphasized that the girls would be protected and taken care of just like their own family would take of them.  Many aspects of the mill life motivated girls to work in the Lowell mills, including , being able to earn their own money and pay for their own clothes, and having the independence of living away from home. However, just because the girl herself was convinced to work at the Lowell mills, that didn't mean that she was going to . The parents also had to be convinced to let their own daughter live away from home at the mills, and the Lowell Experiment did just that. The corporation set rules on the girls, making church mandatory, and giving them a curfew that must be obeyed, along with a code for behavior. By ensuring that the girls were going to be safe and taken care of like family, parents were often convinced to let their daughter’s work in the mills. Also, in the article, A World in Transition, it explains that because of industrialization, and the expansion of trade from new roads and canals, farmers were going out of business and woman were looking for work off the farm. Because of this families were willing to let their daughters work at the mills so that they could make money to send home to their families, and because the girls were being cared for, it meant that they would have one less mouth to feed.  

Often times because of the successfulness of the Lowell Experiment girls would be sent  to work at the mills, and along with that decision there were many costs and many benefits. Based on the video, Daughters of Free Men, some benefits that came out of working in the mills included, the opportunity for education, the money for the girls to buy their own clothing, and they got evenings and Sundays off from work. Also some costs of working in the mills that were evident in the film included, girls being unkind, cruel overseers, and the spread of gossip. There were false expectations when going to the mills that everyone would be kind and friendly. The working conditions of the mills were also some costs, for example, the mills were loud and the air was dusty, there was a high potential for injury, and they were malnourished, they had to sneak out of the mills just if they wanted a drink of water. Lastly, the fear of wage cuts, bells running their lives and having four to six girls in one room were some costs of working in the mills.

Many factors of industrialization, and opportunities for women, reflected the attitudes towards women during the 1800’s.The fact that mills were one of the only working opportunities outside of the farm shows that people didn't think that women were fit for laborious jobs and physical work. In the reading, A World in Transition, it shows that women didn't have as many rights as men at the time, and were not treated equally to men. Also, women were restricted from work after they got married, proving that they were thought to have the job of taking care of their families. Woman had started to be given more opportunities, but were still restricted to what they could do.

Overall, industrialization was a big turning point for woman, for they now had more opportunities to be independent and work outside of their homes, and off of the farms. The Lowell experiment made it possible for the families of the girls to realize this , and that sending their daughters to the mills was the right choice. It stressed that there were so many positives, even though there may have been some negative aspects, but the experiment worked, and many woman went to live their lives in the Lowell mills having opportunity to make their own living.