Two sources that I found were “Haiti’s Agonies and Exhalations” by Ramsey Clark and “Why Brazil was Different: The Context of Independence” written by Kenneth R. Maxwell, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow, Council on Foreign Relations. Both articles talk about the reasons by which their respective countries went about abolishing slavery.

William Ramsey Clark (born December 18, 1927) is an American lawyer, activist and former federal government official, who was involved in civil rights movements in America, and occupied senior positions within the United States Department of Justice, while John F. Kennedy was in office. His article”Haiti’s Agonies and Exhalations” goes into detail on how and why Haiti was able to become the first European colony that was able to overthrow its European monarchs and establish themselves as an independent nation. Haiti was originally split between the French and the Spanish. Its pointed out in the beginning of the article that the amount of slaves within the islands far out numbered the European presence, drawing attention to the idea that the Europeans were in over their head. `On  August 14, 1791 the slaves of Haiti rebelled and eventually won the battle against France. They then won again against Napoleon, and scared by the power of the slaves the Spanish left the island, so on January 1, 1804 Haiti became an independent nation. It continues on to talk about how the Slave uprising in Haiti, gave hope to slaves  in other countries in North and South America, and it made Europeans fearful of loosing their colonies. Haiti was able to abolish slavery when they became and independent nation, however not all nations abolished slavery as soon as they overthrew their European powers. Its important to use this source as it is an important case study regarding slavery within Latin America.
The second source that I plan on using will be “Why Brazil was Different: The Context of Independence” written by Kenneth R. Maxwell, Nelson and David Rockefeller. I will not being using the entirity of the source, only the last four pages, as not everything relates to citizenship and human rights in the new republics. With regards to slavery the article discusses the reasons in which the abolishment of it came about within Brazil, stating that it was less of a humanitarian or ethical effort but more so one forced upon them by Britian, who called for them to not practice slavery above the equator. The objection is slavery was also inpart with the people believing that there was a racial embalance in Brazil, that would cause instability and would threaten the growth as a nation, in comparison to the European model. However since they were unable to alter the way labor worked within their government they were unable to abolish slavery until the late 1880’s, making it the last nation in Latin America to do so. This source is important as it goes into the reasons why Brazil was the last to do so.  

This week our lectures focus of the way that Latin America was represented politically. It starts off my asking a question of who is represented in Latin America and the time. From this question it transitions into a summary of the causation of the American Revolution, and then the effects that the revolution had upon Latin America politically. Just as the French Revolution in some ways lead to the American revolution, the American revolution can be seen as a catalyst for the revolutions in Latin America. This meaning that the fuel was there for the revolution; the mistreatment of large populations within a nation i.e. slavery, and the spread of revolutionary ideas ignited the fire of the revolution.

One such revolutionary leader at this time period is none other than Simon Bolivar, who not only helped independence movements on one country but in two different regions of Latin America. He believed that Latin America was destined for greatness, but he saw the journey to this greatness as arduous. However he did not intend to liberate the Latin American people as a whole, he instead turned his back ,as Professor Cameron stated, to the indigenous and Native American people, and focused more so on the creoles. A population of Spanish people who were born in the New World. The creoles were left out of Spanish politics so Bolivar felt that his people did have the voice that they so rightfully deserved in Latin America. One of the problems he thought he faced was that there was no history of his people, since they in essence were a social construct created by the Spanish elite to maintain more power within Latin America. He drew upon the history of political revolutions throughout history within Europe and the United States for a model of government that he could mold Latin America into.

Professor Cameron goes on to talk about the influence that Bolivar had on Hugo Chavez. It wasn’t so much that Bolivar was the model for which Chavez constructed his own revolution it was that Chavez saw what Bolivar did as a base, or an incomplete revolution. Chavez wanted to push past what Bolivar had done and create a country that was more accessible to people from all ranges of life. He gained popular support by being an extremely charismatic leader, who made the people feel as if that he was talking directly to them. This kind of leader, a populist leader, can be seen man times curing different periods of Latin American history. Such as in Argentina with the Perons and in Cuba with Fidel Castro.

The first reading in this week entails the first hand accounts of Christopher Columbus and his voyage to the Americas. Before i read the Columbus’s  accounts my impressions of him were mixed. As a young child in America you’re taught that Columbus was a good man because of him it lead to the eventual founding of America. They celebrate him, and give him a special holiday. However as I got older by impression of him was more negative because he came to a new land and treated as if it had always been Europe’s land and that he was superior to the people who were living there.

However after reading his accounts of his encounters in the Americas my opinion changed a bit. His actions in the Americas weren’t inherently bad, although they did lead to negative things for the Native people of the Americas. Reading his journal it seems that he treated the native people in general with respect and was not extremely violent to them. They even were kind to him and he met with their Kings. They also communicated with them and navigated the foreign landscape with the help of the natives. The natives also helped them find food. Columbus’ intentions were morally sound, since he did not go with the intention of finding America, but rather he went in search for a new route to Asia.

The second reading comes from  translation of the works Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala. He was a self taught writer. His work is important because he keeps a track of the conquest of Latin America by the Spanish. One such conquest he talks about is that of the Don Francisco PIizarro and Don Diego de Almagro and Fray Vicente of the Order of Lord St. Francis on their encounters with the Incan people. They try and convince their king and the rest of them that they should convert to Christianity. However Their king does not accept their faith because he and his people worship the sun because it is always there. The Spanish are offended by this and thus they attack the Incan people. The disproportion of the attack and the ability of the native people to defend themselves against the Spanish is made very apparent in this story. It says that only 5 Spanish were killed in the attacks, while many natives were murdered.

It’s important to look at first hand accounts of historical accounts in order to gain the perspective of how society viewed the events at the time.