History 475: 2011

Saturday, April 30, 2011

comments

Cocalero is a film that outlines issues surrounding the coca-growing regions of Bolivia and the indigenous mobilization against an unfair state that resulted from the attempted eradication of the coca crops. The primary concern from the indigenous perspective was that the Bolivian government was trying to eradicate the livelihood of thousands of indigenous farmers for the greater good (elimination of the cocaine producing coca plant). However what the Bolivian government did not expect was the indigenous to form up a union headed by the Aymara Indian Evo Morales.

However what was not expected was Evo Morales putting up a bid for the presidency of Bolivia. He ran under the socialist platform and portrayed himself as an every-man. This led to mass appeal and easily helped him to garner support for his platform of redistribution of wealth, renationalization of industry, and legalization of coca. Overall he won by a huge margin. This can be attributed to his genuine concern for his people, we think back to Our brand is crisis from last week and we see that putting up a false front and calling for change when the candidate does not have the resources available to enact it is ultimately a waste of time and causes nothing but problems for everyone even remotely involved. In the case of Evo, he has lived with the problem at the base level, he knows what needs to be done and he knows how to go about doing it. This is one of the key aspects to being a successful leader. Many people were concerned about the socialist nature of his party, but what we as Americans need to realize is that sometimes socialism is what is needed for a country, each place can be led differently and what works for the United States may not work for Bolivia or Ecuador.

The concept of indigenous uprisings is not a new one, according to the Les Field article, a very similar situation happened in Ecuador, there were multiple uprisings because the indigenous people wanted the government to “give back the land that once belonged, and still rightfully belongs to the indigenous communities. The Sawyer article supports this, citing that the reasons for the indigenous mobilizations were not unreasonable and included such things as the reestablishment of their national identity, reassertion of their indigenous rights, opportunities to conserve the state of their native lands, maintaining social justice, and gaining greater autonomy.

We see that this is a fight that has gone on any time a foreign entity has come in and staked its claim on an area already colonized by its own race of indigenous people. Another prime example is the United States of America and the violence of the American Indian War and the legacy of the Trail of Tears. This is one of the unsuccessful stories that contrast with the success of Evo’s triumph for the Bolivian Indigenos. However had they successfully united between their tribes and risen up against the United States, the story could have been very different, this could be a country led by the people we once slaughtered so that we could live peaceably here.

Bus 174 [makeup]

The Documentary entitled Bus 174 is centered on a Bus Hostage Situation that occurred in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in 2000. It focuses on the invisible street children of Latin America and provides the audience with a slight sense of moral confusion, do we empathize with Sandro’s upbringing and strong will to survive or do we detest his violent and deadly methods? What is the attitude of these people? In the introduction of the film, Luciana talks about her dreams, she says “Can I talk about my dreams? My dreams of happiness? I think I’ll never know happiness. I don’t have anybody. I don’t have a mother, a father, I don’t have shit. I only have my kids. There’s no way I’ll ever know happiness.” This is a huge sentiment of the favela area.

People live their simple lives day by day just trying to get by the best way they know how. And similarly that is the goal of the street children dubbed the invisible children by society. According to the film “there are two ways of producing social invisibility. One can be made invisible if his presence is neglected. And one can be made invisible if we cast a stigma over him, replacing his singularity with our prejudices. We only see what we project, not what we really are…invisibility is perfectly accomplished by death.” This is the reason that these kids have to try and stand out in order to be seen enough to survive. This is also evident in the drive-by victim article, a man who radiates false wealth is robbed in a taxi, he is scared, but he complies. In a later sort of Stockholm syndrome episode, he relates to his attackers, who are just trying to get by the best that they can in the situation that they are given. They do not want to be violent, but they also do not want to starve to death. So if a victim complies, then they let them go peaceably, but if they make it difficult, the attackers must subdue the victim and still try to get enough money to survive until the next robbery. It is a high risk-low reward system that they utilize, but unfortunately they do not have any better way of getting by in such a rough area.

According to I saw a city invincible “Police have given up on many barrios in Mexico City, Bogota, Lima, Rio de Janeiro, and elsewhere where their own safety is not guaranteed. It is one of the supreme ironies that urban areas with concentrations of poverty stricken folk and people of color are today effectively forbidden to public safety officer, the elites’ instruments of power and authority.” This means that the rule of law is left to the most powerful and the best armed. In this system it is the criminals who are in charge of society, those who lie, cheat, and steal to get what they can to survive. In a world such as this, if you are invisible, then so long as you do not do anything that draws too much public attention(like, say, hijack a bus or go on a murdering spree) then you can do whatever it takes to survive. So do we empathize with Sandro or detest his actions. I think it is both to a degree, we feel angered that he made the choices he had to make, but we also understand why he made them.

[this is a prearranged makeup from a doctors appointment- spoke with Tony]

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Our Brand is Crisis

The film “Our Brand is Crisis” is a documentary outlining the reelection of Bolivian President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada, the months following his reelection, and self-exile and the aftermath, The film focuses on the American-style campaigning and strategy for being reelected president. He hired James Carville and his associates (of President Clinton’s election committee) to help serve as his advisors during the whole process. The name of the film comes from the strategic spreading of American democracy in former authoritarian nations through these “strategists for hire”. This multinational realignment towards American neoliberal political and economic tendencies slowly grew into what would come to be known as the “Washington Consensus”. (Cypher 47) However by extending our fingers into all of these economies, we (America) were essentially spreading ourselves too thin and putting too much stock into all of these young democracies financially…needless to say, this was a bad idea. When these economies failed, it impacted the United States as there were investments made in the form of bail out and rescue funds. As was the case with Bolivia, after Goni realized he could not save Bolivia economically, he pulled out and moved to the United States, realizing that the United States was the better option of the two.

Following this trend of economic tethers between the United States and developing nations, we see the inevitable downside of relying on a foreign import entirely for the well being of the nation. OPEC is the primary supplier of oil to the United States, and as a result of this, the Middle East, as a region, has huge influence over how much Americans are paying every week to fill up their cars, trucks, and SUVs. The industry is in the business of making money too, and they will do whatever it takes. According to the Perkins literature, they were willing to kill off or otherwise remove unproductive or potentially damaging members of the oil companies. Along the same vein, if they found somewhere like the Amazonian Basin (a place rich in crude oil deposits), they were willing to buy out the government, and demolish the rain forest and tropical paradise in order to make a few million dollars.

This ties us back to the film once again. James Carville and his associates were willing to orchestrate elaborate smear campaigns and psychological tactics in order to persuade the people of Bolivia to reelect someone that already had a reputation for being an ineffective and economically harmful leader to lead their country even further down the economic spiral that they were currently experiencing. The bottom line for the whole situation is that it all ties back to making money, or at the very least not losing money. Goni would have lost money if he had not been reelected, and he wanted to maintain his standard of living in the face of economic crisis, but at the same time he thought he could help Bolivia recover and raise the standard of living for the country as a whole.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

La Virgen de los Sicaros

La Virgen de los Sicaros is a film about murders in Colombia, but focuses specifically about an older man who returned to Medellin and his newfound exposure to violence and murder as a result of drug warfare. The film is very unique in its casual representation of gay lifestyle in Latin America and the very unsettling relationship between a 50 year old man named Fernando and a young boy named Alexis who leads his life with many instances of violence theft in his wake until he himself is murdered, a year later by “The Blue Lagoon”, a young man named Wilmar who Fernando would eventually become entangled with. After this instance we see how deep these murders go, senseless killings lead to vengeance killings, which lead to even more senseless murders. This is the case with Wilmar, he killed Alexis because he(Alexis) killed Wilmar’s brother. Fernando vowed to escape this and take Wilmar with him, however Wilmar dies shortly before they leave. This is where Fernando realizes that there can be no happiness regarding Medellin at all, and finally kills himself. One curious note in the film was the minimal reference to drugs, we knew there was violence, and we knew it was in Colombia, but there were no Griselda Blanco’s or her hitmen around, it was an understanding that if you killed someone then you could get money if there was a bounty on their heads like with the police or the military.

We see today, as evidenced by National Security Archives article that even into the early 2000s drug cartel warfare is still a huge problem in Colombian Society, due largely in part to the paramilitary groups being more powerful than the state government itself. The Vargas article explains it further when it goes into the mafia style society where personal violence (or fear of it) is used to exercise control over the area. This hearkens back to situations similar to what we saw in Cidade de Deus, where the government is weak to control violence and the way that life is structured is based upon the fear of unprovoked violence or murder. As we saw in La Virgen de los Sicaros, a man could have been killed for something as simple or non threatening as whistling, being accused of stealing the songs of the birds and depriving them of their own voices. Something as irrelevant as whistling leading to a potential shootout (if we recall, both the aggressor and the accuser had firearms in this instance) is ridiculous—such hostility over things that aren’t a matter of honor or money is inexplicable if we consider it from the modern American perspective that we hold today.

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Cocaine Cowboys

Cocaine Cowboys is a film that documents drug trafficking from Colombia through Cuba and into the United States. There are first-hand accounts of a heartless and cruel drug boss named Griselda Blanco killing anyone that stood in her way, to include innocent children and stories of drug runners using high tech communications equipment to monitor coast guard and ICE radio bands. The film begins with the transition with the marijuana trade in the 60’s and 70’s and transitions quickly to the cocaine trade of the 1980’s and how it effectually made Miami the city that it is today, a city of extravagance based on millions upon millions of dollars made through the sale of illicit drugs. The strategy behind the trade was quite brilliant, using Americans to transport the drugs across the border and arrange a drop to exchange drugs for money, never having either in the same place, and then the drugs went to the Colombians for sale on the streets of Miami and onward from there.

The focal point of the movie starts with the Dadeland Massacre of 1979 in Miami where Griselda Blanco ordered the hits of several men in a liquor store. This was the spark that ignited the powder keg known as the “Cocaine Wars”, basically a living hell on the streets of Miami. However the cocaine trafficking was not a new trade for the citizens of Cuba, who served as the intermediaries from Colombia. According to the Gootenberg article, “Havana was among the first post-war global sin capitals, with roots in Prohibition, where offshore gangsters rubbed shoulders with their “Latin” counterparts from Chile, Panama, Argentina, and Mexico, amid the haven of corrupted regimes of Prio, Grau, and Batista.”(150) This is the culture that permeated Miami during the Cocaine Wars and caused the bloodshed which, according to the movie, was upwards of 600 murders a year during the peak of the hellacious violence.

However, one of the most interesting points of the entire film is the socioeconomic impact that the Cocaine trafficking had on Miami, its grandiosity would never had been possible had it not been for the men and women putting their drug money towards politics and local infrastructure, while the local and federal government had to realize what was going on, they simply turned a blind eye to it, despite the incontrovertible evidence such as the Miami Federal Reserve bringing in more money than every other Federal Reserve combined. If it helps make the town a better place, I suppose that is justification for all of the lives lost. Many agree that despite the economic benefits after the cocaine wars, they still would rather it not have happened and Miami made its own name on the business of tourism instead of being a modern day “Paradise Lost” as Time magazine so succinctly put it in their exposing article in the 1980’s that defamed the city for the overt narcotics industry.

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Cidade De Deus

Cidade de deus is a film from 2002 based upon a real-life favela (ghetto) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. The film illustrates the issues of drug wars and how they can absolutely take over a neighborhood. The two primary dealers were Li’l Ze and Knockout Ned who were vying for control of the neighborhood and their wallets. A few key elements of the film are the corruption of the local government, the struggle to gain and maintain majority control and power, and the change that occurred when City of God transitioned from a rural area when they were children to an urban area when they grew into their late teens.

In the story we see several symbolic characters, including Rocket, the younger brother of a hoodlum who died at the hands of Li’l Ze and sought to expose the violence of Cidade de Deus, Bene, who illustrated the desire to get out of the favela and do better for himself, Knockout Ned who did not want to do any harm, but got sucked into the underworld by Carrot, coupled with the knowledge that Li’l Ze wanted him dead, and finally was Li’l Ze himself, the crazed product of the original trifecta of power in Cidade de Deus. He, according to the Harton Article, epitomized the subaltern class that is marked by violence, illiteracy, and murder. The upbringing of Li’l Ze shows the viewer the gradual corruption of youth through limited exposure to violence as a small child, and the breaking point (in the case of Li’l Ze, the hotel robbery turned massacre) where the shift in mindset takes over. Then we gradually see him become the foremost gangster of Cidade de Deus and turning that corruption over to the next generation of gangster, as we can see when he forces steak and fries to shoot the 2 “runts” in the foot for stealing and then forces him to kill one of them.

Aside from the violence, changes in power from one drug lord to the other brought about relative stability to the region, as described in the Oliviera article, this is a result of being overlooked by National Economic Policy and essentially having to fend for themselves. The realization that the police were not the saviors that they should be, instead of eliminating the crime, they were supplying the criminals with small arms, and it was through photojournalism of people like Rocket, were the pieces of the puzzle put together that would lead the trail back to the Police. This underground world of violence, murder, and corruption was bound together only by fear, fear that drug lords like Li’l Ze would kill them and their entire families if they went against him or his orders .

Sunday, March 20, 2011

Che: Part 1

The film “Che: Part 1- The Argentine” tells the story of Che Guevara during the July 26^th movement, including cutbacks to him addressing the United Nations in 1964 as well as cutbacks to an interview between him and Lisa Howard of ABC news. Che’s overall goal for the revolution was to fight imperialism and cut it off at the head, which, according to him, was the United States of America.(Tricontinental Address).

The United Nations speech in the movie reinforces what was said at the Address to the “Tricontinental”. The whole driving force behind his argument is that the imperialism that was so evident in the Roman and Byzantine empires of the Middle Ages is still very much alive within the Empire of the United States of America, leader of the United Nations. He makes the claim that the US/UN uses their combined powers to “blackmail humanity by threatening it with war” (Tricontinental). This is (allegedly) due to the strategy of installing puppet governments and overthrowing governments perceived to be a threat to the well-being of the US/UN.

Che’s strategy is to utilize guerrilla warfare to achieve his goals of fighting off American imperialism in Latin America.(guerrilla warfare article) His goals were to prove that a militia can win a war against an army, to create conditions of revolution through insurrection, and the battleground should be in the undeveloped countryside as opposed to in the urban environment.

Che Guevara’s strategy and motives were played out through the actions of the July 26^th movement, which took place largely in the jungles and sought to recruit literate Cubans who were unsatisfied with the government in order to change their way of life through a violent revolution against imperialism. He gained his support by touting the guerrilla fighters as the heros of the revolution, saying that “Facing the general superiority of the enemy at a given place, one must find tactics with which to gain relative superiority at the moment” (GW) these were accomplished by force concentration and effective utilization of the terrain to know whether or not it is wise to act or sit in wait for a better opportunity in which to strike against the army.

Tactically, his logic is sound, according to Alfred Thayer Mahan, "War, once declared, must be waged offensively [and] aggressively. The enemy must not be fended off; but smitten down. You may then spare him every exaction, relinquish every gain, but 'til then he must be struck incessantly and remorselessly." This was Che’s strategy throughout the revolution. To consistently be on the dominant side of the battle, or else a battle would not take place, doing this helped to ensure more wins and thus gaining more support for the cause of the revolution, thus increasing the guerrilla army.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Motorcycle Diaries

Motorcycle Diaries is a film based upon the diaries of Ernesto “Che” Guevara as he traveled through Latin America in the early 1950’s . The film specifically focused on Ernesto (Fuser) “Che” Guevara’s and Alberto Granado’s travels throughout Latin America, but especially Peru and their interaction with indigenous cultures throughout the area, most notably being the Peruvian Leper Colony in San Pablo where he noticed a stark difference in status between the physicians and clergy and the Lepers. It was the experiences gained during this journey that influenced Che’s beliefs that would be his driving force later in life. This is evident in the Drinot Article, which states “the poverty and injustice that [Che] observed struck a sensitive chord’ while he came ‘to identify United States imperialism as the source of the injustices and poverty that he observed in South America.” (Drinot, 90)

The focus of Guevara’s expedition was to have a fun adventure but the route let him experience the inequities present in the more rural areas when compared to a large city like Buenos Aires. His work in Peru as well as the speech made at his birthday party gave light to his political motivations. He said (in the film) “We believe, even more after this journey, that the separation of America in false and uncertain nationalities is completely fictitious. We are a single mixed race, from Mexico to the Strait of Magellan. So, trying to free myself from any nationality load I raise a toast for Peru and for America united—Cheers.” Immediately following this he swam across the large river (despite his asthma) to spend his final night in Peru with the San Pablo Leper Colony that he had been providing care for the last two weeks. The Drinot Article further goes on to postulate that he had the power to heal the lepers by treating them like humans and interacting with them in a less sterile but more humane manner, like people instead of captive animals. This description served to portray Che Guevara in a Christ-like manner, with the power to right societal wrongs and make the world a better place. When this is coupled with the analysis presented within the Elena Article which described Che Guevara’s interactions with the indigenous and rural populations, we see the genuine concern for the well-being of these lower-class people, but what is also evident is the the unavoidable ability to distinguish between classes by stage of development. This sort of unintentional classification of people is minor in the grand scheme of things but interested nonetheless as it is something he was actively seeking to put an end to, he wanted one race, one equal America.

Sunday, February 27, 2011

Soy Cuba

Soy Cuba is a film composed of 4 mini sections that gave the viewer true insight into Cuba during the revolutionary period. The film is broken down into 4 stories, the first, a story of Americans in a Cuban night club, where the more liberal American pays a young dancer in the night club to go to her meager home to have sex with her, ultimately ruining her relationship with the young Cuban male selling fruit through town. The second story shows an old Cuban farmworker who worked on land that was then bought by an international corporation. He sent his kids off to town to enjoy other products of American based multinational corporations. This irony is ultimately counteracted by the father burning the sugar crop and dying right there in the field where he worked so hard to make his living. The third story shows American Sailors on a day pass in Guantanamo Bay, leading into a revolutionary march led by a local student who is tasked with killing the police lieutenant (and fails) on a college campus and a corrupt police suppressing and killing the revolutionaries. The final story finally introduces Castro, when Batista’s armies bomb the mountainous region where a family lives and Castro sought refuge for a moment. Mariano, the man living in the hills with his family, is forced to flee when the bombings start, one of his sons die and he is forced to take up arms with the revolutionaries, where a rifle is earned by taking it off of a dead opponent. The film illustrates the changes taking place in Cuba during the revolution and the impact on the lower class general population.

In “Born in Blood and Fire”, the chapter on revolution speaks to the shantytowns where women like “Betty” live and are taken advantage of by Americans who visit the region. The Cuban revolution marked by communist ideologies was the only viable solution for the corrupt Batista regime that was in place. This revolution slowly grew until the United States saw the growth of Nuclear Arms and became nervous; realizing the Russian threat of the Cold War was now in their back yard. This culminated in the Bay of Pigs invasion orchestrated under President Kennedy. According to Eckstein’s article, the revolution resulted in higher social welfare but weakened their “capacity to compete in export markets”, and the success rate of the revolution was diminished because of limitations not within their control and exploitation from world powers on either side

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Gabriela

Gabriela is a story of a young woman of low social class who falls in love with the Italian Mr. Nacib and has several instances of uninhibited sex with him. Their taboo love made it all the more dangerous and thrilling for them. However soon Nacib became jealous of the attention that Gabriela received from all the locals and wanted to stake his claim on her, he had her citizenship documents forged and proposed marriage to her, which she accepted, though indirectly and somewhat hesitantly. The Besse article refers to the “Law of Cain” which elaborates upon the concept of homicide as a result of infidelity, generally committed by the male partner. This idea comes into play when Nacib walks in on Gabriela and the gentleman from out of town, he mercilessly beats Gabriela then exposes the Notary Public for committing fraud and demands an annulment due to the forgery. This leads to Gabriela’s freedom from the bonds of marriage. It allows her to be herself once again, she no longer has to hide her illiteracy, she is free to enjoy childish entertainment such as the circus, and she is no longer forced to wear shoes and keep her hair up.

However people such as Gabriela were often criticized in society, a strong liberal and free willed woman could not easily fulfill the necessary role in the household, they had to be “docile and obedient… good cooks and housekeepers… as wet nurses, affectionate with the children” (Vida Policial) These “Ellas” had to be forcefully conformed to fit in the patriarchal structure of Brazilian society where women were either mothers or prostitutes.

So what was Gabriela? She was not a mother, she was a temptress, but does that make her the prostitute defined in the Vida Policial article? Well she was not a criminal, just a poor woman who was very sensual and seductive in the eyes of the people of the town. She loved her life but she was not the definition of the prostitute in the article, which would pen her as a petty criminal. Gabriela was very innocent minded, having a child-like perspective on life, she did not wanted to be tied down or forced to conform to the roles of the wife or the mother. She was happy with her role as a cook, even as Nacib’s mistress. In this role she could dress and do as she pleased, however once they married, Nacib forced a more conservative appearance upon her to hide her sexuality from the rest of the town. This did not fit her lifestyle, so she strayed as Nacib’s desire for her dwindled. This complex relationship unraveled quickly after this point and the relationship reverted back to a secretive mistress role of sneaking around and having wild sex.

Overall, this VERY sexual film discusses sexual roles in Brazil in the 1920s and the impact of the paternalistic structure and perception of women in this time on the “Gabriela” character.

Sunday, February 6, 2011

Camila

The film "Camila" provides a historical and dramatic image of the story of the young Camila O'Gorman, an Irish-Argentine womam of 20 years and promenant social standing in the area. According to Hart's article on Camila’s indiscretions from 1847 and 1848, the young Camila O’ Gorman fell in love with the new priest, Uladislao Gutierrez after having met him during a confession of a sexual dream she had, they hid their love up until they finally eloped in the winter of 1847 and assumed new names in a new town, this lasted up through when Camila conceived a child and they were finally discovered in the Summer of 1848 and sentenced to death. The story takes place from Bemberg’s decidedly feminist perspective, as evidenced by the actions and the depiction of Camila as a strong woman who knew what she wanted, and followed through with her desires despite what her overbearing father had to say regarding the situation.

According to the Stephens article, the courtship was probably much less melodramatic in real life than what Bemberg portrayed in the movie. Ladislao had taken his priestly vows against his will and they were therefore invalid in the eyes of God. He openly proclaimed to Camila, even within the context of the film that he was willing to take Camila as his partner before God. This act is very significant in the film as it provides a sense of justification to the rebellious acts of Ladislao and Camila. They were not committing a sin in the eyes of God, only in the eyes of Camila’s father, Adolfo O’Gorman and the Bishop.

Ladislao's Offense (according to Adolfo)

He seduced Camila under the guise of religion and stole her away. In the situation Camila was perceived as a passive victim, placing all of the blame on Ladislao. However the Bishop condemned both Camila and Ladislao as miserable, ungracious and unhappy individuals who committed a great sin and should be punished accordingly, by death, as it turned out.

In the End, both were shot by firing squad, despite the fact that it was illegal to kill a pregnant woman. The hesitation in the eyes of the firing squad when it came to shooting Camila was more than evident, the commander of the squad had to force them to fire under the threat of his own weapon to keep them from lowering their weapons a final time. This indicated a sense of compassion for the Camila and their feelings regarding an unjust judgment on the matter of their relationship. But when it came down to it, they completed their duties and killed both Ladislao and Camila as the judgment had decreed. However, as the closing scene suggests, Ladislao and Camila were reunited forever in death with Ladislao's voice over that whispered "A tu lado, Camila," (By your side, Camila) as they were placed side by side in the same coffin. Reading back to the perceived illegitimacy of Ladislao’s vows, they could indeed share eternity with one another, as they were no longer bound by the judgment of secular rulers.

Adios y hasta la proxima vez,

Daniel Kiser

Saturday, January 22, 2011

The Mission

Several things came to my mind last Wednesday while sitting in class as we watched The Mission, examples of patriarchy, loyalty, and controversy resulting from shifting political currents a half a world away. This is my final history class in a long, long line of undergraduate history courses, and the approach taken is by far the most unique.

First off, the first scene painted a picture of typical indigenous rejection of the Jesuit missionaries, I seem to recall a similar reaction when the Portuguese went to japan in the 1800s. Those poor Jesuits just cannot seem to figure out how to make a good first impression. However secondary attempts appeared to work in this case when Father Gabriel approaches this tribe of Guarani Indians once again shortly thereafter to try and try to present Christianity in a manner that is less confrontational and more appealing to them. The final straw was the image of De Niro's character pulling the sack full of his armor and weapons up the fall for penance for killing his brother for sleeping with his fiancée, thus ruining their potential monogamous relationship (paternalism anyone?) and the realization that he wasn't seeking forgiveness from the Jesuits, but rather the Indians It was only when they saw the faith in his eyes that a small Indian boy relieved him of his burden and dropped his armor and weapons into the river below and accepted him as well as the Jesuit missionaries into their village and permitted them to establish a mission and preach Christianity to them.

This act of obtaining acceptance essentially justified the creation of the mission in the tribe, the were willing to accept the ideals of Christianity, the values that the missionaries so passionately taught to them. This idea is something they were willing to defend even to the death after the Iberian governments had to choose between the ultimatum of outlawing the missions and enslaving the tribes or sanctioning the mission and face excommunication by the Jesuit order. They chose outlawing the mission in order ensure that they retained their source of spiritual guidance. So how does this fit in the big picture? We have the context, all that is left is to provide the historical facts.

The facts, plain and simple, is that the Iberian powers in place were there to colonize and make money off of their colonies, it was a huge business venture on the part of the Spanish and Portuguese crowns. They needed labor in order to gain a profit, and this was most easily done through enslaved labor and the indigenous population was far cheaper than importing slaves from Africa. Many of these indigenous people were not willing to go peacefully and stuck to their (metaphorical) guns and their Christian ideas of faith and honor that were instilled in them by the members of the Jesuit order, even to the point of dying for their somewhat newly planted beliefs. This is often what happened, however they were never any match for the superior firepower of the Iberian viceregencies.

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Purpose

The purpose of this blog is to complete assignments as required for History 475 for the Spring 2011 Semester at the University of Tennessee- Knoxville.