We
spent this week discussing the importance of human value. Do not fret, for it
was not a week’s worth of, “Your smile is beautiful but your heart is
beautifuller”. More appropriately, we focused on the acknowledgement of human
values regardless of race and found evidence of this social imperative in the
Latin American Revolutions. To start off our lesson, we took notes on the
social rank of each racial group in the Latin American social structure as well
as the percent that group made up of the population. The population was made up
of 11% Peninsulares, 23% Creoles, 7% Mestizos, 8% Mulattoes and Free Blacks,
50% Indian peoples, and 11% slaves. If you were a Peninsulare, you were a
European from the Iberian Peninsula (Spain or Portugal). If you were a Creole,
you descended from Europeans but you were born in the New World. If you were a
Mestizo, you descended from one white parent and one parent with Indian
heritage. If you were a Mulatto, you were a free person of color (having at
least one parent of African descent). Indians were the people living in Latin
America before the Spanish colonized there. Slaves were of African descent,
some even born in Africa. And, as history has often showed, the people with
power made up the smallest percentages of the population: the Peninsulares.
 |
| My group's timeline of the Mexican Revolution |
When
comparing the Brazil, the Gran Colombia, and the Mexico revolutions we
discovered some similarities between the three outbreaks. All three revolts
were around the early 1800s and they were all against European countries who
colonized and controlled them. All of the people not of European decent were
fighting against the Peninsulares (lower class against the upper class). The
revolutions were also somewhat different in that Gran Columbia and Mexico took
place in Spain and were both very violent revolts, unlike Brazil, which took
place in Portugal, and provoked very little fighting. Both Brazil and Gran
Columbia had a government made up of only Peninsulares and the mixed lower
classes wanted to overthrow them. Mexico was run by Peninsulares as well as
Creoles. Countries were choosing their leaders based on race (white people in
power, people of mixed race were in lower classes) rather than choosing them in
a way that considers the real aspects of a good leader. Our class has just
written a DBQ about Toussaint Louverture, the leader of a widely known
slave rebellion. He was African American and possessed amazing leadership
qualities. If his race were to prevent him from spreading his influence on
those that were affected by it in a positive way, that would change history for
the worse. When you’re a kid, you must’ve been told, “It’s what’s on the inside
that counts”. If someone’s outward appearance blinds us from the capable
qualities they possess, then revolts will inevitably and rightfully occur.
I
think it’s very rare that, in our society today, we’ll make it through a whole
month without hearing a story about racial discrimination. It’s hard for people
to not consider someone’s race when figuring out their first impression of
them. I’m not saying it’s right for someone to judge another person based off
their race, but it’s hard for most people to ignore it. Then, in addition to
that, there’s the dispute if it’s right for us to ignore it. Last year, in
history, we took a survey about the future of America and one question asked if
America should be colorblind or a melting pot; one ignoring all race and one
embracing the different cultures and heritages. Either one is in support of
equal rights. No one’s race should determine what they’re capable of; let alone
what they’re incapable of.
No comments:
Post a Comment