Race and Latin American Revolutions

During this unit, we looked at some of the revolutions in Latin America that resulted from Napoleon's conquest of Europe.  In particular, we looked at the roles race played in these revolutions and why they are evidence that it is necessary to recognise everyone's value regardless of race.  The issue of race and people's refusal to look past it has been an issue for a long time, and continues to be a problem today.  We studied the revolutions in Brazil, Mexico, and Gran Colombia and the ways that they were affected by race by splitting into groups.  Each group studied a different revolution (my group focussed on the revolution in Gran Colombia) and created a timeline of the major events in their chosen revolution.  Then all of the groups compared their timelines and found two similarities and two differences between all of the revolutions.

This is our timeline of the revolution of Gran Colombia, detailing the events and actions of revolutionary Simon Bolivar.  Here are some similarities and differences between all of the Latin American revolutions.

Similarities:

• All of the revolutions began with discontent in the lower classes.
• All of these revolutions gained independence from European rule, but none of them ended up with racial equality.

Differences:

• The Brazilian revolution was mostly peaceful, while the other two were violent.
• In the Mexican revolution, the Royalists were the ones who gained independence.

 In Gran Colombia, the Spanish colonists of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador wanted independence from Spain.  Simon Bolivar, leader of the revolution, gathered an army of lower classmen who were discontent because they were treated as less than colonists born in Spain.  In Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla led an army primarily made up of Indians and Mestizos to gain independence and racial equality.  In the end, however, Mexicans with any Indian blood still had fewer rights than those of Spanish descent.  At the beginning of the revolution, Joaquim Jose da Silva Xavier, the only lower class member of the conspiracy which started the revolution, was blamed for the whole thing.  He was hanged and became a martyr for the revolution.  The new emperor of Brazil became unpopular when he filled his cabinet with Portuguese-born members.

Today, racism is less prominent than in the 18- and 1900s.  However, it is still very much a problem in society.  Just a few months ago, in Ferguson, Missouri, Michael Brown (an 18-year-old black man) was shot by a police officer multiple times after stealing a few cigars from a local store.  There are many accounts of what happened, and it is unclear whether Brown had his hands raised in surrender or was moving towards or away from the officer.  It is clear, however, that the policeman fired twelve rounds, about 6 of which were hits - and Michael Brown was unarmed.  Defenders of the police officer stated that Brown was 6 feet 5 inches, weighed almost 300 pounds, and was moving toward the officer threateningly.  They have neglected the fact that the shooter, an Officer Darren Wilson, is 6'4", weighs over 200 pounds, is ten years older than Brown was at the time of his death, and (being a police officer) is trained in combat.  Moving towards someone threateningly is absolutely no reason to be shot six times.  What's more, Officer Wilson was not indicted.  These events sparked nationwide protest, and in Ferguson, the police responded with military force.  The whole affair sounds as though we have gone back in time to the Civil Rights Movement.  This is one of many things that show that racism is not a problem that we have overcome.  Race (and differences in general) is something that humanity is still trying to come to terms with.  However, as a Unitarian Universalist, I believe that each person has inherent worth and dignity, and that is a belief that I stand by firmly.  It is extremely important to stand up for minorities, because everyone deserves human rights.  By recognising everyone's value regardless of the colour of their skin, we can start on the path to freedom and free will for all.

Summary of the Brazilian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCE3_/1f9c3cf44b98eaea3745a49013852ec4/Brazil_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Mexican Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCF5_/b4c681dc17802a623745a49013852ec4/Mexico_Summary.pdf
Summary of the Gran Colombian Revolution:
http://www.edline.net/files/_6SCFi_/1d4b498f9f8c12db3745a49013852ec4/Gran_Colombia_Summary.pdf

I Do Not Think That Word Means What You Think It Means

I haven't got a smartphone, and I don't use social media much.  I don't have a Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, and I don't text much.  Does this make me a Luddite? 

Luddite protestors smashing a textile making machine.

Not in the traditional sense, no.  The word Luddite has come to mean someone who doesn't use much or isn't very good with technology, but originally, the Luddites were a group of protestors in Industrial-Revolution-era Britain.  They targeted factories and broke machines, but they weren't necessarily opposed to technology itself as much as the way that technology was used.  They were fine with machines as long as they were operated by responsible workers who were trained and paid decent wages, and so long as they didn't take over people's lives completely.  Their protests were well-orchestrated, supposedly led by a man named Ned Ludd, who turned out to be fictional.  Some of the protestors cross-dressed, and the protests had a playful and lighthearted feel that made them memorable, even as the Luddites were protesting very serious issues, some of which still remain today.  For our exploration of the Luddites, we wrote a RAFT essay - a mock primary source letter from someone experiencing the Luddites' protests during the industrial revolution. Here is a factory girl's letter to a cousin in America.

Dearest Cousin Addy,

     You know that I have recently gotten a job at a factory in Manchester.  I like it here, and I fear that my father would bring me home if I told him what has been happening here, but I need someone to confide to.  There are groups of protestors who have been rioting against the factories, smashing machines and killing mill owners.  There have been some shots fired, and I am afraid.  None of the protests have been against the factory where I am working yet, but I fear that that may change soon.  Soldiers have been sent to protect the factories, and I am afraid of getting caught in the crossfire.
     Factory work can be dangerous, I know that.  Many girls have had terrible accidents and been injured, and I have been very fortunate to avoid something like that.  The work is long and hard and the wages are not stellar, but it is nice to be around other girls of my own age and to be able to send money home to my family.  I enjoy working here.
     I think that these Luddites are right to ask for better wages and working conditions, but the violent protests and the retaliation of the soldiers is frightening.  I wish sometimes that I was brave enough to protest for better wages, but that would surely lose me my job, and I might get hurt in the protests.  I'll leave the violence to others for now.

Love, Mary

Image: Conniff, Richard, What the Luddites Really Fought Against, smithsonian.com
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/what-the-luddites-really-fought-against-264412/?no-ist=&c=y%3Fno-ist&page=1

Document Based Question - Toussaint Louverture

Toussaint Louverture was the leader of the Haitian Revolution in the 17-1800s.  Inspired by the French Revolution, he fought for abolition in what was then the French colony of Saint Domingue.  He later became the ruler of Saint Domingue and fought for independence.  Louverture was captured before Saint Domingue gained independence, and he died in a French prison.  He made some controversial decisions, but is primarily remembered as an abolitionist, a ruler, and a military commander.

When the French Revolution began in 1789, ideas like liberty and equality spread to France’s colonies.  The slaves of Saint Domingue began to revolt until the new French government abolished slavery in all of its colonies.  When France was taken over by Napoleon, he sent troops to Saint Domingue to reinstate slavery, but Toussaint and his rebel army fought Napoleon’s forces to keep their freedom.  France’s government in 1795 became more conservative than the rebellion’s government, and many feared that they would try to reinstate slavery in the French colonies.  Louverture told this new French Directory that the former slaves of Saint Domingue would willingly fight and die to keep their freedom now that they knew what freedom was like.  Louverture signed the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, which stated that while slavery was abolished, the economy of Saint Domingue would remain plantation-based, and that workers would now be paid and have better conditions.  

In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, Toussaint Louverture was made the dictator of his colony for life.  He also decided to keep the plantation-based economic system, which led to revolts against Louverture’s new government.  In order to maintain order, Louverture felt that he had to reinstate policies very similar to those that existed before slavery was abolished.  There was no free speech, people had to have security cards on them at all times, and any workers who ran away from their plantation would be arrested.  Anyone who harboured a runaway worker would be imprisoned.  Louverture was willing to be unpopular in order to secure what he thought was right.

Part of Toussaint Louverture’s role as leader of Saint Domingue was as a military commander.  His nephew, Hyacinthe Moyse, led a revolt in the Northern Department of Saint Domingue.  He believed that the plantations should be parceled out in individual farms, and that plantation workers were free in name only.  A very violent revolt broke out, and white people were massacred in the Northern Department, which Moyse was the commanding general of.  Louverture forced some of the rebels to shoot themselves, and arrested Moyse and sentenced him to death by firing squad.  Not all of his military ventures were quite so cruel, however.  He was a good military strategist and was able to defeat Napoleon’s troops by burning the port cities where the troops landed and fleeing to the mountains where the rebels had always had the upper hand.  He also conquered the Spanish side of the island.

Althought Toussaint Louverture made some questionable moves while ruling Saint Domingue, he was primarily an abolitionist and a liberator of slaves.  He was also a military commander.  He was a great military strategist, and ruled Saint Domingue, protecting the liberty of its citizens.

1830, Time for a Revolution

In class recently, we've been learning about the revolutions that happened in Europe in 1830 and 1848, especially whether or not they were failures.  To determine the level of success of each of the revolutions, the class split off into groups and each group was assigned a different revolution.  Then each group made a SurveyMonkey about their revolution for the rest of the class to take.

Our group was assigned the Decembrists' Revolt, which took place in Russia.  Our SurveyMonkey is here with a few extra questions here.

When Tsar Alexander died, many citizens wanted Constantine for the throne.  However, he abdicated, and Nicholas was made tsar in his place.  Those who wanted Constantine for tsar revolted, and when Nicholas retaliated, it became very bloody very quickly.  He was initially reluctant to spill the blood of his own people, but felt that it was the only thing he could do, and soon became quite obsessed with crushing the revolution and teaching a lesson to not only Russia, but the rest of Europe as well.  The people of Russia were also angry about the terrible, slave-like living conditions there and their miserable poverty.  After Russia was conquered by Napoleon, they saw what better, more democratic living conditions were like, and they wanted those better conditions back when Napoleon was defeated and Russia's conditions became horrid again.

The Decembrists' Revolt was the only revolution that was a complete failure.  It resulted in a military crackdown on the people of Russia, and they ended up with even fewer rights and freedoms than they had originally.  The Hungarian Revolution of 1848 was a partial success because it caused Metternich to flee Austria.  Metternich was the primary voice of conservative ideals in Europe at that time.  The revolt was eventually oppressed, but they did accomplish this victory.  The French Revolution of 1830 was also a partial success, because they got rid of Charles X, who revoked their constitution and freedom of the press, but France became a constitutional monarchy again, and conditions for the poor were not improved.  France had another revolution in 1848.  The revolutions of 1830 and 1848 were not complete failures (except for the Decembrists' Revolt), but they definitely weren't successful.

Political Ideologies of the 19th Century

In the 1800s, three major political ideologies existed: liberalism, conservatism, and nationalism.  To learn about these ideologies, we split off into groups and each group was assigned an ideology to make a one-minute video on.  Our group was assigned to make a video on conservatism.  19th century conservatism is based on the idea that in order to have peace, we should look to the past, because old traditions are tried and tested and kept the peace for years.  Liberalism idealised progress.  Liberals were more interested in the good of the many than individual rights.  Nationalism was the sense of pride in one's nation and belief that all people with the same culture and language should be unified.

To view our presentation and learn more about conservatism, check out our video here!

Our presentation clearly defines 19th century conservatism and gives some reasons as to why people would have these ideals.  Conservative ideals rooted in the past accounted for the repression of revolutions during the 1800s.  Conservatives felt that the old monarchies and government systems should remain in place, as opposed to liberals who thought that Europe needed new governments in order to move forward.

Liberals were behind the revolutions of the 1800s, as they wished to move forward.  Nationalists also fed the fire of revolution, saying that people should feel unified instead of divided by class structure.

Napoleon

There is and always will be debate over Napoleon Bonaparte and whether his actions were beneficial or damaging.  His actions affected social, political, and economic systems in Europe and all over the world.

http://www.mrodenberg.com/category/corsica/

Napoleon conquered almost all of Europe, and destroyed class distinctions between serf and noble, washing away classist titles.  While this was good for the poor peasants of Europe, the former nobles and royalty did not like these changes and felt that their rights were being taken away.  He undertook huge public works programs, which again benifited the poor.  Under Napoleon, Europe was a less classist and separated society.

Napoleon allowed the countries under his rule to function as usual, just reporting to him.  Instead of many absolute rulers, there was only one who controlled all of Europe.  The rulers of conquered countries did not like having their power diminished, but the poor enjoyed better conditions.

Napoleon also encouraged industry and built up the infrastructure of the countries he conquered.  The gap in wealth between the upper class and the lower class shrank as a result of Napoleon's economic changes.

While many of Napoleon Bonaparte's actions were controversial, his affect on the countries he ruled was mostly positive.

Lowell vs. London

During the Industrial Revolution, workers in America and Britain had bad working conditions, like low wages, long hours, and no breaks for meals.  However, in each country, a different set of working conditions was created because of the differing economic and social situations of the two countries.

Britain had had a recent population boom, and they had limited land space.  There were lots of poor children who could be employed in terrible conditions with low wages because their families needed the money.  America, meanwhile, was expanding.  They had a small population which was moving westward.  Factory owners would have to provide a much more attractive workplace with higher wages in order to have parents send their girls there.

As a result of this, Britain's mill working conditions were much worse than those in America.  In England, children were beaten if they did their work wrong.  Their days started earlier (5:30) and they only got one short break for lunch.  In America, however, mill workers were paid higher wages, given more free time, and breaks for meals.  In both countries, however, it was very dangerous to work in the mills.  Accidents with the machinery were common, and often near-fatal.  Nearly half of children working in British mills were disabled in factory accidents.  People could be caught in the leather belts of the machines, or catch their fingers in spinning bobbins, or be crushed by falling bales of cotton.

While both countries did not exactly have stellar working conditions, British mill workers were definitely worse off.