Level 1:
I know enough to think about aliens. I have read and watch shows on many theories about aliens. My favorite was from the series “Taken.” In this show, aliens have become so advanced that they loose their ability to feel and in an effort to recover it they experiment with humans. I don’t know enough this topic to even talk about it. It is fascinating as it is incredible. One day when I have spare time I will read more on the topic so that I’m better equipped to talk about.
Level 2:
Technology is something that I can think and talk about. The way things work, the things that a computer can do, the “specs” on a digital camera or the functions on a cell phone are all things that I can talk about. While I’m not an expert I can explain to people what technology can do for them. I usually will read a tech or gadget magazine to find out about the latest hardware and software. Usually I can spend hours figuring out software such as Photoshop or Dreamweaver to get them to do what they are supposed to do. There are many people who are afraid to browse or explore their computers thinking that something can break. Technology is there to make things easier for us, so that we may spend our time enjoying our freedom.
Level 3:
For this level I have to say that my knowledge in History and Politics go hand in hand. For those interested in politics it is necessary to know History. While I don’t think I could teach History I could teach History in politics, meaning I would very much enjoy taking current events and teaching others on how similar events in History have turned out and how we could expect our current example to be resolved. I am passionate about American History and how politics have evolved in this country. I planned to further my education in this topic by reading my text books required for my degree and by researching on my own.
Level 4:
Frankly, I don’t know enough about everything to where I can say I can debate its issues. Perhaps the only topic which I would say I come close to this level is my knowledge of how Personal Injury Protection insurance coverages work in the states of California, Utah, Idaho and Nevada. Since my job is to handle medical claims in those states I have to be very knowledgeable on the insurance laws. Many times I have found myself in “debates” with my co-workers in a “case scenario” where we are trying to decide if a particular case meets the requirements for us to provide medical coverage. While I’m knowledgeable on the requirements to do my job I still have to rely on others who have more experience and knowledge than I do on this particular topic. I constantly review our insurance policies to make sure that I know why I make the decisions that I make and to ensure that one day I will be the one answering questions.
Saturday, June 21, 2008
My higher education
I started my college education right after my graduation from high school in 1999. I knew that I would need to earn a degree if I wanted to succeed and achieve the goal I had set for myself for the time I turned 30 years old. After my fourth year in college (still a college junior) I got married and made plans with my wife to finish our schooling. A few months after we were married, we were blessed with our first unexpected child. While we were extremely happy for my wife’s pregnancy it did however, put our education goals on hold. For the next four years my wife and I worked different decent paying jobs that made us complacent with not having our college degrees.
In September 2007 my wife got pregnant with our second child. I took a look at my life and realized that I had been working in dead end jobs. I decided that it was time to look for a job that would perhaps lead me to a career. I turned to my younger sister for advice. She had graduated from the University of California, Riverside where I had also attended college. She had been working for over two years for an auto insurance company in California. I never bothered to ask my sister about her job or even how much she made. She told me that she had started her position at $16 an hour with a company car, cell phone, laptop and other incentives. Two years later she was making $22 an hour. Her position of course required a college degree. She advised me that most insurance companies do have positions for “non-degree” personnel. Between the time I decided to search for a new job and by the time I spoke to my sister, I had realized that I had invested four years of my life and a substantial amount of money. I became determined to finish what I had started.
I decided that I wanted to work for an insurance company and I applied to company that I had always wanted to work for. Fortunately the company was interested in me and I was offered a “non-degree” job and I was more than happy to accept it. I took a pay cut but I wanted to explore my options. I learned that by obtaining my degree I could apply for a degreed position and get a pay increase of ten to fifteen thousand dollars. I realized how much money I was losing by not having my degree. Now I was inspired to finish my college education. I want to finish my education not only to earn more money but because now I know that I will be able to achieve my goal I had set for myself when I started my college education. I will be able to have my own home, a car for my wife and one for me. I will be able to take a week long vacation with my family and travel to a different state every year. My first trip will be to West Virginia when I attend my graduation ceremony.
I want to finish my degree and I know that it will take lots of effort and reading. I want to read all that I can because I want to expand my vocabulary. I deal with people day in and day out. I want to be able to communicate clearly and precisely. I think that attending an online college will be useful for me because I will be using technology along with good old fashion books to study and complete my assignments. I am a self taught computer technology, so navigating and familiarizing myself with the online campus was a challenge I’ve welcomed and have faced without fear of “breaking” anything.
When I started college I was in it just because my parents always told me that I should go to college. With time and through my own experience I have come to realize that college is not only necessary to succeed in today’s world but can also be useful in other ways. Attending college has helped to develop an inquisitive mind and to enjoy learning. If I don’t know or understand I’m not afraid to ask questions. Because I’m able to analyze and inquire, I consider myself an educated person. I do not consider myself better or worst than anyone else, but I do think that most people without a college education are at a disadvantage. Some uneducated members of my family believe everything they hear and watch on television. They are not able to analyze what they hear and question it or agree because they think its right. Instead they take everything on its face value as things are presented to them. I want to use my education to learn, inquire and analyze.
Perhaps the most formidable challenge that I will face in completing my degree, will be time management. As a full time parent, student, husband and employee I will have a difficult time balancing my duties and responsibilities to ensure that I don’t neglect any of them. I will also face the usual college challenges such as procrastination and peer pressure. I am determined to do well in school and so I have dealt with procrastination. My peer pressure would’ve come from my wife asking me if I was done with my homework so that I could spend time with her and our children. I wanted to deal with this challenge swiftly and so this is my solution: in order to succeed my wife and I need our degrees, so my wife is also going back to school. We have divided the week so that we both have time to complete our school work while the other cares for our children and allowed for one day off school work. This will allow us both to complete our assignments and it will also allow us to spend time with our children.
The number one reason why I want to complete my degree is because I want to set an example for my children. I was blessed to have parents that told me I had to go to college but they did not lead me by example. I want to lead my children by example and make the best case that I can as to why their education will be their greatest investment and achievement. Ultimately, it will be their decision to make but I know that it will be an educated decision.
In September 2007 my wife got pregnant with our second child. I took a look at my life and realized that I had been working in dead end jobs. I decided that it was time to look for a job that would perhaps lead me to a career. I turned to my younger sister for advice. She had graduated from the University of California, Riverside where I had also attended college. She had been working for over two years for an auto insurance company in California. I never bothered to ask my sister about her job or even how much she made. She told me that she had started her position at $16 an hour with a company car, cell phone, laptop and other incentives. Two years later she was making $22 an hour. Her position of course required a college degree. She advised me that most insurance companies do have positions for “non-degree” personnel. Between the time I decided to search for a new job and by the time I spoke to my sister, I had realized that I had invested four years of my life and a substantial amount of money. I became determined to finish what I had started.
I decided that I wanted to work for an insurance company and I applied to company that I had always wanted to work for. Fortunately the company was interested in me and I was offered a “non-degree” job and I was more than happy to accept it. I took a pay cut but I wanted to explore my options. I learned that by obtaining my degree I could apply for a degreed position and get a pay increase of ten to fifteen thousand dollars. I realized how much money I was losing by not having my degree. Now I was inspired to finish my college education. I want to finish my education not only to earn more money but because now I know that I will be able to achieve my goal I had set for myself when I started my college education. I will be able to have my own home, a car for my wife and one for me. I will be able to take a week long vacation with my family and travel to a different state every year. My first trip will be to West Virginia when I attend my graduation ceremony.
I want to finish my degree and I know that it will take lots of effort and reading. I want to read all that I can because I want to expand my vocabulary. I deal with people day in and day out. I want to be able to communicate clearly and precisely. I think that attending an online college will be useful for me because I will be using technology along with good old fashion books to study and complete my assignments. I am a self taught computer technology, so navigating and familiarizing myself with the online campus was a challenge I’ve welcomed and have faced without fear of “breaking” anything.
When I started college I was in it just because my parents always told me that I should go to college. With time and through my own experience I have come to realize that college is not only necessary to succeed in today’s world but can also be useful in other ways. Attending college has helped to develop an inquisitive mind and to enjoy learning. If I don’t know or understand I’m not afraid to ask questions. Because I’m able to analyze and inquire, I consider myself an educated person. I do not consider myself better or worst than anyone else, but I do think that most people without a college education are at a disadvantage. Some uneducated members of my family believe everything they hear and watch on television. They are not able to analyze what they hear and question it or agree because they think its right. Instead they take everything on its face value as things are presented to them. I want to use my education to learn, inquire and analyze.
Perhaps the most formidable challenge that I will face in completing my degree, will be time management. As a full time parent, student, husband and employee I will have a difficult time balancing my duties and responsibilities to ensure that I don’t neglect any of them. I will also face the usual college challenges such as procrastination and peer pressure. I am determined to do well in school and so I have dealt with procrastination. My peer pressure would’ve come from my wife asking me if I was done with my homework so that I could spend time with her and our children. I wanted to deal with this challenge swiftly and so this is my solution: in order to succeed my wife and I need our degrees, so my wife is also going back to school. We have divided the week so that we both have time to complete our school work while the other cares for our children and allowed for one day off school work. This will allow us both to complete our assignments and it will also allow us to spend time with our children.
The number one reason why I want to complete my degree is because I want to set an example for my children. I was blessed to have parents that told me I had to go to college but they did not lead me by example. I want to lead my children by example and make the best case that I can as to why their education will be their greatest investment and achievement. Ultimately, it will be their decision to make but I know that it will be an educated decision.
Education in a Mexican Community (revised)
The level of education people achieve will determine their lifetime earning potential. “Data from the U.S Census Bureau (2002)…Show that high school drop outs earn on average, around $18,900, whereas college graduates may earn $45,400 or more annually” (Mueller, Giacomazzi and Stoddard, 2006). Growing up Mexican I learned that in my community, success was not an option, it is more of a dream that is not achievable and viewed by many as exclusive to whites. Instead of going to school, many Mexican students choose not to go to class and instead they spend their time with gangs and consequently as J.W. Newman explained, “show an increasing amount of extreme resistance to schooling and conventional socialization” (as cited in Hartnett, 2007). Education in the Mexican community where I grew up was not highly valued or at least not as valued as going to work construction (or any other job that did not require a high school diploma) and bringing home money to help the family. Unfortunately most people in Mexican communities do not make an effort to ensure the education of their children by reading and talking with their children. This is the case of generation after generation resulting in “the median income for Hispanic men…[being] less than two-thirds the figure for non-Hispanic men-$14,141 compared with $22,207…” (Rodman, 1992). Consequently this becomes a vicious cycle because “parenting is influenced by poverty….Poverty is linked to poorer child outcomes as well as poorer parenting” (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1997). The following are examples of how the learning of people I know have been influenced by their environment.
First case: A 15 year old girl gets pregnant and she gives birth to a beautiful boy whom I baptized and accepted the moral and religious responsibility of his upbringing (a responsibility on which I have miserably failed). By the time she was 21 she had four children with 3 different fathers and was living in a motel room. By the time she was 23 she had bored 2 more children and added another father to this family. By this time her brother, whom I use to play video games with, was in jail and his girlfriend lived with her parents with a fatherless child. Also on of her cousins was pregnant by the age of 16. Statistically “only 64% of Hispanics graduate with a high school diploma or its equivalent…” (Mueller, Giacomazzi and Stoddar, 2006). The odds are that only 3 of her 5 children will graduate from high school. How did this person turn out to be this way? It was known to those around her family that both parents were cheating on each other. Her mom was the neighborhood whore. Both of her parents never completed middle school and were Mexican immigrants.
Second Case: A family of 4 siblings and their unemployed mother and disabled father. The third oldest was a female pregnant by 15. All 3 of the high school aged siblings dropped out of High School. I hate to make this prediction but I think the youngest will follow the elder's footsteps. They did not idolize Bill Gates for being a college drop out and still managing to be the richest man in the world. Instead they would gather in their front lawn and they would always talk about a certain drug dealer, idolizing him while getting drunk. Their father was disabled and both parents were illiterate. In this case it is obvious that their parent’s poverty and lack of education influenced this family’s choice or lack of to further their education.
Third Case: A friend in high school, more like an acquaintance, we hung around a few times a month. He played video games and studied more than most of us. He only lived only a few blocks from the family in the second case. After high school, his friends began to call him a "bitch" because he no longer hung around with them (out of all his group of friends, he was the only one who attended and finished a college education). Both his parents completed their high school education in Mexico. His younger brother also attended college and his sister opted for a short career. The interesting fact about this case is that this person was chastised for sacrificing time with his friends in order to further his education. While not all of his friends work dead end jobs they will never have the earning potential that he does with his bachelor’s degree.
The fourth case is about me. Why? Because by having knowledge and first hand experience, I have an opinion on this topic. Growing up as an illegal immigrant I wanted to be like the cool Mexicans, the cholos. I dressed like them and tried to imitate everything that they did. In middle school I once yelled the F and the N words all in one sentence. I was loved by certain circles for doing that, I felt good. One day when walking to school I found a knife so I sold it to a friend, who happily paid me a dollar only to later give up my name as the person that sold him the knife, after he pulled it on a teacher. So I was suspended. When my mom came to pick me up form school, she was crying. When my father came home he gave me a beating that I don't care to remember. I remember one of my hands was numb. Is this child abuse? I think not because right after that I told myself, “this shit ain't happening again” (but in Spanish because I did not speak English at that time). Up to this point I had allowed myself to be influenced by my community and my peers. Looking back at how I behave for the better part of my junior high years,I now realize that after that they I allowed my parents to influence me and my educational decisions. They encouraged me and my two siblings to get an education. Both of my parents completed their highs school education in Mexico.
I then went on to high school where I struggled in all my classes and hung around in TJ (Tijuana) with all the “border brothers.” I managed to graduate and went on to a community college. It was there that I was forced to learn to study and do homework because I was willing pay to repeat any of my courses (I had to work two jobs to pay for school) this wasn't free and I wasn't going to take it for granted. I finally and barely was accepted into a four year university where my performance was far from stellar. At about that time I got married and had my first child and naturally I had to drop out of college. Five years later I finally managed to go back to school to finish what I started. My goal is to achieve financial success. Through my parents I witnessed what can be achieved through hard work. My goal is to work hard using my education. It was their support that made me ambitious but not greedy. Lastly, I want to better myself so that I may give my children the resources they need to be successful and break and defy the education statistics of their cultural and ethnic background.
Statistics are mounted against Mexicans who want to pursue a higher education. Out of the 27 people mentioned here, only six have attended a university or college. That means that only18.5% of the 27 people mentioned here have actually attempted to further their education. We were all from the same community no more than 5 miles apart from each other. Most of the 27 people knew each other. This relationships have lead me to believe that not only does a person have to be smart enough to get good grades and get an education, but any person must also have a support system and an environment that will encourage and instill a need for success through education. Making it isn't easy and only our families can support us so that we can further our goals and succeed in today’s world.
References
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, L, (1997). Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consquences of Children, Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hartnett, Sharon. The High School Journal. Does Peer Group Identity Influence Absenteeism in High School Student? Vol. 91, Issue 2, 2008.
Mueller, D., Giacomazzi, A. & Stoddard, C. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. Dealing with Chronic Absenteeism and its Related Consequences: The process and Short-Term Effects of a Diversionary Juvenile Court Intervention. 11(2), 2006.
Rodman, Griffin. CQ Researcher. Hispanic American, Vol. 2, 2002.
First case: A 15 year old girl gets pregnant and she gives birth to a beautiful boy whom I baptized and accepted the moral and religious responsibility of his upbringing (a responsibility on which I have miserably failed). By the time she was 21 she had four children with 3 different fathers and was living in a motel room. By the time she was 23 she had bored 2 more children and added another father to this family. By this time her brother, whom I use to play video games with, was in jail and his girlfriend lived with her parents with a fatherless child. Also on of her cousins was pregnant by the age of 16. Statistically “only 64% of Hispanics graduate with a high school diploma or its equivalent…” (Mueller, Giacomazzi and Stoddar, 2006). The odds are that only 3 of her 5 children will graduate from high school. How did this person turn out to be this way? It was known to those around her family that both parents were cheating on each other. Her mom was the neighborhood whore. Both of her parents never completed middle school and were Mexican immigrants.
Second Case: A family of 4 siblings and their unemployed mother and disabled father. The third oldest was a female pregnant by 15. All 3 of the high school aged siblings dropped out of High School. I hate to make this prediction but I think the youngest will follow the elder's footsteps. They did not idolize Bill Gates for being a college drop out and still managing to be the richest man in the world. Instead they would gather in their front lawn and they would always talk about a certain drug dealer, idolizing him while getting drunk. Their father was disabled and both parents were illiterate. In this case it is obvious that their parent’s poverty and lack of education influenced this family’s choice or lack of to further their education.
Third Case: A friend in high school, more like an acquaintance, we hung around a few times a month. He played video games and studied more than most of us. He only lived only a few blocks from the family in the second case. After high school, his friends began to call him a "bitch" because he no longer hung around with them (out of all his group of friends, he was the only one who attended and finished a college education). Both his parents completed their high school education in Mexico. His younger brother also attended college and his sister opted for a short career. The interesting fact about this case is that this person was chastised for sacrificing time with his friends in order to further his education. While not all of his friends work dead end jobs they will never have the earning potential that he does with his bachelor’s degree.
The fourth case is about me. Why? Because by having knowledge and first hand experience, I have an opinion on this topic. Growing up as an illegal immigrant I wanted to be like the cool Mexicans, the cholos. I dressed like them and tried to imitate everything that they did. In middle school I once yelled the F and the N words all in one sentence. I was loved by certain circles for doing that, I felt good. One day when walking to school I found a knife so I sold it to a friend, who happily paid me a dollar only to later give up my name as the person that sold him the knife, after he pulled it on a teacher. So I was suspended. When my mom came to pick me up form school, she was crying. When my father came home he gave me a beating that I don't care to remember. I remember one of my hands was numb. Is this child abuse? I think not because right after that I told myself, “this shit ain't happening again” (but in Spanish because I did not speak English at that time). Up to this point I had allowed myself to be influenced by my community and my peers. Looking back at how I behave for the better part of my junior high years,I now realize that after that they I allowed my parents to influence me and my educational decisions. They encouraged me and my two siblings to get an education. Both of my parents completed their highs school education in Mexico.
I then went on to high school where I struggled in all my classes and hung around in TJ (Tijuana) with all the “border brothers.” I managed to graduate and went on to a community college. It was there that I was forced to learn to study and do homework because I was willing pay to repeat any of my courses (I had to work two jobs to pay for school) this wasn't free and I wasn't going to take it for granted. I finally and barely was accepted into a four year university where my performance was far from stellar. At about that time I got married and had my first child and naturally I had to drop out of college. Five years later I finally managed to go back to school to finish what I started. My goal is to achieve financial success. Through my parents I witnessed what can be achieved through hard work. My goal is to work hard using my education. It was their support that made me ambitious but not greedy. Lastly, I want to better myself so that I may give my children the resources they need to be successful and break and defy the education statistics of their cultural and ethnic background.
Statistics are mounted against Mexicans who want to pursue a higher education. Out of the 27 people mentioned here, only six have attended a university or college. That means that only18.5% of the 27 people mentioned here have actually attempted to further their education. We were all from the same community no more than 5 miles apart from each other. Most of the 27 people knew each other. This relationships have lead me to believe that not only does a person have to be smart enough to get good grades and get an education, but any person must also have a support system and an environment that will encourage and instill a need for success through education. Making it isn't easy and only our families can support us so that we can further our goals and succeed in today’s world.
References
Brooks-Gunn, J., Duncan, G., & Aber, L, (1997). Neighborhood Poverty: Context and Consquences of Children, Vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Hartnett, Sharon. The High School Journal. Does Peer Group Identity Influence Absenteeism in High School Student? Vol. 91, Issue 2, 2008.
Mueller, D., Giacomazzi, A. & Stoddard, C. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk. Dealing with Chronic Absenteeism and its Related Consequences: The process and Short-Term Effects of a Diversionary Juvenile Court Intervention. 11(2), 2006.
Rodman, Griffin. CQ Researcher. Hispanic American, Vol. 2, 2002.
The Cold War
The cold war was simply the result of the two super powers, following the end of World War II, to influence world affairs and prevent one another from being influenced by the other. The cold war was essentially and ideological war between capitalism and communism.
Germany was a point of contention between the US and the USSR. Stalin wanted to use Germany’s resources to rescue the Russian failing and battered economy. The US feared that it would have to bail out Germany and the communist USSR. The involved nations could not agree on the fate of Ger many so it was then decided to divide Germany, essentially into a communist and a capitalist side. Both nations wanted to control Europe and in their efforts they entered into a decades long symbolic war.
The development of Atomic and Hydrogen bombs also proved to be problematic for the US-USSR relationship. Both sides wanted to be in power and not allow the other to have more influence on world affairs. Both powers wanted to have the upper hand in weaponry. Eventually this lead to scientific advancement of nuclear technology. It is likely that Russia feared that it would be to suffer an atomic attack and so it intensified its development in order to deter the US from using an atomic bomb against Russia. Thankfully neither nation was prepared to launch a full scale nuclear war because of their fear of using nuclear weapons.
The formation of NATO made the USSR suspicious of how much NATO members would seek to interfere in Russian affairs. The creation of NATO further deteriorated the US-USSR relationship since it was well known that NATO was an attempt to contain Russia. From the communist perspective, NATO probably appeared dangerous since it would unite western nations against the USSR.
Germany was a point of contention between the US and the USSR. Stalin wanted to use Germany’s resources to rescue the Russian failing and battered economy. The US feared that it would have to bail out Germany and the communist USSR. The involved nations could not agree on the fate of Ger many so it was then decided to divide Germany, essentially into a communist and a capitalist side. Both nations wanted to control Europe and in their efforts they entered into a decades long symbolic war.
The development of Atomic and Hydrogen bombs also proved to be problematic for the US-USSR relationship. Both sides wanted to be in power and not allow the other to have more influence on world affairs. Both powers wanted to have the upper hand in weaponry. Eventually this lead to scientific advancement of nuclear technology. It is likely that Russia feared that it would be to suffer an atomic attack and so it intensified its development in order to deter the US from using an atomic bomb against Russia. Thankfully neither nation was prepared to launch a full scale nuclear war because of their fear of using nuclear weapons.
The formation of NATO made the USSR suspicious of how much NATO members would seek to interfere in Russian affairs. The creation of NATO further deteriorated the US-USSR relationship since it was well known that NATO was an attempt to contain Russia. From the communist perspective, NATO probably appeared dangerous since it would unite western nations against the USSR.
What is the racial legacy of Colonialism?
Latin America was ruled by a very small White population during the reign of the Spanish Monarchy in America. The Spanish wanted to create a two-class society of the whites and everyone else. Because of their small numbers and the “relative absence of west European women in the migratory currents to the new continent….Spaniards frequently married the daughters of the Amerindian nobility…” (Chasteen & Wood p.4).
This mixing of blood created other classes, the mestizos and mulattoes just to name a few. This proved problematic for the Spanish because those with mixed blood and even those with Spanish blood, but born in American created or where placed in different classes. In fact those who were the product of racial mixtures, often became “artisans, wage laborers, or…vagabonds or vagrants….Accepted neither by Whites nor Amerindians…” (Chasteen & Wood p.5). These people became the undesirable part of Latin American communities.
From the very beginning of Latin American occupation by the Spanish, there was always a distinction between caste, blood and color. Today at least in Mexico, these distinctions have endured. I lived in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico for just over a year and I was simply appalled by how people are treated based on their physical traits and appearance.
The state of Oaxaca is one of the poorest states in the Mexican union. Mexico can be divided into north and south. Northerners are for the most part light skinned, average height people. In the south people are dark and short. This is a generalization that I witness and not one of my own. It was noticeable that most people in power in the state of Oaxaca where tall and light skinned people while almost without fail a dark and short person can be identified as poor or at least socially unimportant. It is also safe to say that the northern states are the most powerful and rich states in Mexico while the southern states remain in poverty and always last in the list of governmental priorities.
Mexican law has abolished royalty tittles but has inherited the Spanish colonial need and custom of addressing others so to identify class and social status. Any one who has completed their bachillerato (bachelors degree) is addressed as “licensiado” which can be loosely translated as bachelor (in this case one whom has completed a bachelors degree). This serves only the purpose of identifying social class. It is well known that the poor cannot attend school and much less complete a college career. Then there is the second rate class of “technicos” or technicians. I was part of this class since I worked as an x-ray technician. I was introduced as “technico, Victor Hernandez” although my co-workers knew that I resented the introduction, not because I was considered a second class citizen but because I disagreed with the need to want to identify one self as part of a social class or status.
Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.
This mixing of blood created other classes, the mestizos and mulattoes just to name a few. This proved problematic for the Spanish because those with mixed blood and even those with Spanish blood, but born in American created or where placed in different classes. In fact those who were the product of racial mixtures, often became “artisans, wage laborers, or…vagabonds or vagrants….Accepted neither by Whites nor Amerindians…” (Chasteen & Wood p.5). These people became the undesirable part of Latin American communities.
From the very beginning of Latin American occupation by the Spanish, there was always a distinction between caste, blood and color. Today at least in Mexico, these distinctions have endured. I lived in the state of Oaxaca, Mexico for just over a year and I was simply appalled by how people are treated based on their physical traits and appearance.
The state of Oaxaca is one of the poorest states in the Mexican union. Mexico can be divided into north and south. Northerners are for the most part light skinned, average height people. In the south people are dark and short. This is a generalization that I witness and not one of my own. It was noticeable that most people in power in the state of Oaxaca where tall and light skinned people while almost without fail a dark and short person can be identified as poor or at least socially unimportant. It is also safe to say that the northern states are the most powerful and rich states in Mexico while the southern states remain in poverty and always last in the list of governmental priorities.
Mexican law has abolished royalty tittles but has inherited the Spanish colonial need and custom of addressing others so to identify class and social status. Any one who has completed their bachillerato (bachelors degree) is addressed as “licensiado” which can be loosely translated as bachelor (in this case one whom has completed a bachelors degree). This serves only the purpose of identifying social class. It is well known that the poor cannot attend school and much less complete a college career. Then there is the second rate class of “technicos” or technicians. I was part of this class since I worked as an x-ray technician. I was introduced as “technico, Victor Hernandez” although my co-workers knew that I resented the introduction, not because I was considered a second class citizen but because I disagreed with the need to want to identify one self as part of a social class or status.
Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.
How does the Cold War period fit into broader patters of the historical relationship between the United States and Latin America?
It is well known that Latin America has suffered from many political, social and economic setbacks that have stunted its growth and development. Latin American governments have been plagued by corruption and inevitably instability. This has led to “less enthusiasm [as opposed to that in Europe] for new private investments in Latin America, because of Castro and the unsettled conditions in the area.” Unequivocally, political instability has kept many investors out of Latin America. This translates to a low standard of living as well as less education, consequently thwarting ability to create a stable social, political and economic atmosphere. The Unites States has sought to intervene in the development of democratic government in the area, not by encouraging education and development but by supporting those seeking power who would pretend to be pro-American and pro-democracy. Once in power, these “allies” would show their true agendas not to be that of a democratic leader. The United States efforts to successfully promote democracy in Latin America have had the opposite effect as many Latin Americans distrust America and its democracy. During the Cold War the U.S. implemented policies towards Latin America to contain the spread of communism. It sought to aid nations who had gained their independence by imposing on them how they should enjoy their new found independence.
The Cold War was an ideology war between two super powers and their corresponding form of government. Each opponent sought to ensure its survival at any cost. However, American intervention in Latin American began long before the cold war. The Monroe doctrine in 1823 stated that any power who sought to or attempted “to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” would be viewed as a danger to American security. President Roosevelt strengthened the Monroe Doctrine by stating that America was willing to act as a police power to ensure that no system should interfere with the independence of newly established nations, as it is the right of nations who had gained independence to make good use of it. Intervention was indeed embedded in American policies towards Latin American long before the 19th century.
The Truman Doctrine in 1946 ironically states that nations in the world had a choice between two alternative ways of life. “The choice is too often not a free one.” The Truman Doctrine offered support for free people who had to choose between two systems, just as long as the chose capitalism. If nations chose the other way of life then they had to be aided to see the error of their choice. This of course applied to Latin America as well. It appears that these doctrines were hypocritical at the very minimum. It was in the United States best interests to increase the “‘capacity and will of such peoples and nations to resist International Communism’…” America was at war and in order to succeed it did what it had to do to contain the enemy. In doing so it took on the roll of a parent towards Latin America. The Cold War gave America an excuse to further its intervention in Latin American affairs and it encroached on Latin, independent nation’s right to their sovereignty and it did not allow them to make good use of their independence.
It seems apparent that Latin America viewed the United States not as a protective force but as an invasive and overpowering one. A prime example of Latin American sentiment towards the U.S. manifested itself after Chile’s Salvador Allende was elected and decided to nationalize U.S. businesses. President Nixon responded with an economic embargo “which brought Allende sympathy even from non-Marxist Latin Americans. Like Castro, he was viewed as a heroic David standing up to the American Goliath.” Recently, Latin America has opted to endorse trading agreements where the U.S. is not involved. Perhaps American historical intervention in Latin American has created irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the U.S.-Latin American relationship can be viewed as when a parent wants to live his life through its children, inevitably the children will be unhappy, aloof and perhaps even vengeful.
Early in the cold war Latin American was disillusioned with the U.S., not because of its Cold War policies toward Latin America but by its historical pattern of unfulfilled promises. In 1961, former United States ambassador to Mexico, Robert C. Hill, expressed his believe that Latin American people had become skeptical about the promises of development made by their own government and the United States. The U.S. had made grandiose promises and attempts to aid Latin America. These attempts were viewed as one sided and not in the best interest of those receiving the aid. In 1977, Alejandro Orfilla, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, points out that U.S. policies have been perhaps “too ambitious in scope and, in consequence, their goals were not fully realized in practice." He also states that what Latin Americans might appreciate more than grandiose plans from the U.S. are more convincing policies of interests such as the "good neighbor" policy and the Alliance for Progress. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt encouraged local leaders, investments and the training of armies through his “good neighbor policy. President John F. Kennedy sought to aid Latin American with its social and economic planning to avoid excessive inflation and also to distribute wealth as evenly as possible.
President Carter recognized the need to have good relations with Latin America and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. However, during the Reagan Presidency, in which America enjoyed great strength and growth, U.S. policies had changed little if at all towards Latin America. The Iran-Contra affair sought to fund the Contra-insurgents in Nicaragua. This was a détente attempt against communism in Nicaragua; it was business as usual.
Historically, the U.S.-Latin America relationship has been unsettled but peaceful. Its become apparent to the U.S. government that its old policies of intervention towards Latin America have not worked and that in order to improve this relationship, U.S. priorities must be balanced out with its interest for Latin America. This will create more acceptable U.S. policies for its hemispheric neighbors. On the other hand, Latin American countries seeking U.S. aid and private investments must make an effort to create democratic governments that instill trust and stability.
Works cited
Buckman,Robert T. Latin America 2007. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: Stryker-Post Publications, 2007.
Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.
Hill, Robert C. "Alliance for Freedom." Vital Speeches of the Day 28, no. 4 (December 01, 1961): 104. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
Orfila, Alejandro. "Can Latin America and the United States Modernize Their Traditional Special Relationship?." Vital Speeches of the Day 44, no. 1 (October 15, 1977): 21. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
The Cold War was an ideology war between two super powers and their corresponding form of government. Each opponent sought to ensure its survival at any cost. However, American intervention in Latin American began long before the cold war. The Monroe doctrine in 1823 stated that any power who sought to or attempted “to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” would be viewed as a danger to American security. President Roosevelt strengthened the Monroe Doctrine by stating that America was willing to act as a police power to ensure that no system should interfere with the independence of newly established nations, as it is the right of nations who had gained independence to make good use of it. Intervention was indeed embedded in American policies towards Latin American long before the 19th century.
The Truman Doctrine in 1946 ironically states that nations in the world had a choice between two alternative ways of life. “The choice is too often not a free one.” The Truman Doctrine offered support for free people who had to choose between two systems, just as long as the chose capitalism. If nations chose the other way of life then they had to be aided to see the error of their choice. This of course applied to Latin America as well. It appears that these doctrines were hypocritical at the very minimum. It was in the United States best interests to increase the “‘capacity and will of such peoples and nations to resist International Communism’…” America was at war and in order to succeed it did what it had to do to contain the enemy. In doing so it took on the roll of a parent towards Latin America. The Cold War gave America an excuse to further its intervention in Latin American affairs and it encroached on Latin, independent nation’s right to their sovereignty and it did not allow them to make good use of their independence.
It seems apparent that Latin America viewed the United States not as a protective force but as an invasive and overpowering one. A prime example of Latin American sentiment towards the U.S. manifested itself after Chile’s Salvador Allende was elected and decided to nationalize U.S. businesses. President Nixon responded with an economic embargo “which brought Allende sympathy even from non-Marxist Latin Americans. Like Castro, he was viewed as a heroic David standing up to the American Goliath.” Recently, Latin America has opted to endorse trading agreements where the U.S. is not involved. Perhaps American historical intervention in Latin American has created irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the U.S.-Latin American relationship can be viewed as when a parent wants to live his life through its children, inevitably the children will be unhappy, aloof and perhaps even vengeful.
Early in the cold war Latin American was disillusioned with the U.S., not because of its Cold War policies toward Latin America but by its historical pattern of unfulfilled promises. In 1961, former United States ambassador to Mexico, Robert C. Hill, expressed his believe that Latin American people had become skeptical about the promises of development made by their own government and the United States. The U.S. had made grandiose promises and attempts to aid Latin America. These attempts were viewed as one sided and not in the best interest of those receiving the aid. In 1977, Alejandro Orfilla, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, points out that U.S. policies have been perhaps “too ambitious in scope and, in consequence, their goals were not fully realized in practice." He also states that what Latin Americans might appreciate more than grandiose plans from the U.S. are more convincing policies of interests such as the "good neighbor" policy and the Alliance for Progress. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt encouraged local leaders, investments and the training of armies through his “good neighbor policy. President John F. Kennedy sought to aid Latin American with its social and economic planning to avoid excessive inflation and also to distribute wealth as evenly as possible.
President Carter recognized the need to have good relations with Latin America and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. However, during the Reagan Presidency, in which America enjoyed great strength and growth, U.S. policies had changed little if at all towards Latin America. The Iran-Contra affair sought to fund the Contra-insurgents in Nicaragua. This was a détente attempt against communism in Nicaragua; it was business as usual.
Historically, the U.S.-Latin America relationship has been unsettled but peaceful. Its become apparent to the U.S. government that its old policies of intervention towards Latin America have not worked and that in order to improve this relationship, U.S. priorities must be balanced out with its interest for Latin America. This will create more acceptable U.S. policies for its hemispheric neighbors. On the other hand, Latin American countries seeking U.S. aid and private investments must make an effort to create democratic governments that instill trust and stability.
Works cited
Buckman,Robert T. Latin America 2007. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: Stryker-Post Publications, 2007.
Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.
Hill, Robert C. "Alliance for Freedom." Vital Speeches of the Day 28, no. 4 (December 01, 1961): 104. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
Orfila, Alejandro. "Can Latin America and the United States Modernize Their Traditional Special Relationship?." Vital Speeches of the Day 44, no. 1 (October 15, 1977): 21. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
It is well known that Latin America has suffered from many political, social and economic setbacks that have stunted its growth and development. Latin American governments have been plagued by corruption and inevitably instability. This has led to “less enthusiasm [as opposed to that in Europe] for new private investments in Latin America, because of Castro and the unsettled conditions in the area.” Unequivocally, political instability has kept many investors out of Latin America. This translates to a low standard of living as well as less education, consequently thwarting ability to create a stable social, political and economic atmosphere. The Unites States has sought to intervene in the development of democratic government in the area, not by encouraging education and development but by supporting those seeking power who would pretend to be pro-American and pro-democracy. Once in power, these “allies” would show their true agendas not to be that of a democratic leader. The United States efforts to successfully promote democracy in Latin America have had the opposite effect as many Latin Americans distrust America and its democracy. During the Cold War the U.S. implemented policies towards Latin America to contain the spread of communism. It sought to aid nations who had gained their independence by imposing on them how they should enjoy their new found independence.
The Cold War was an ideology war between two super powers and their corresponding form of government. Each opponent sought to ensure its survival at any cost. However, American intervention in Latin American began long before the cold war. The Monroe doctrine in 1823 stated that any power who sought to or attempted “to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” would be viewed as a danger to American security. President Roosevelt strengthened the Monroe Doctrine by stating that America was willing to act as a police power to ensure that no system should interfere with the independence of newly established nations, as it is the right of nations who had gained independence to make good use of it. Intervention was indeed embedded in American policies towards Latin American long before the 19th century.
The Truman Doctrine in 1946 ironically states that nations in the world had a choice between two alternative ways of life. “The choice is too often not a free one.” The Truman Doctrine offered support for free people who had to choose between two systems, just as long as the chose capitalism. If nations chose the other way of life then they had to be aided to see the error of their choice. This of course applied to Latin America as well. It appears that these doctrines were hypocritical at the very minimum. It was in the United States best interests to increase the “‘capacity and will of such peoples and nations to resist International Communism’…” America was at war and in order to succeed it did what it had to do to contain the enemy. In doing so it took on the roll of a parent towards Latin America. The Cold War gave America an excuse to further its intervention in Latin American affairs and it encroached on Latin, independent nation’s right to their sovereignty and it did not allow them to make good use of their independence.
It seems apparent that Latin America viewed the United States not as a protective force but as an invasive and overpowering one. A prime example of Latin American sentiment towards the U.S. manifested itself after Chile’s Salvador Allende was elected and decided to nationalize U.S. businesses. President Nixon responded with an economic embargo “which brought Allende sympathy even from non-Marxist Latin Americans. Like Castro, he was viewed as a heroic David standing up to the American Goliath.” Recently, Latin America has opted to endorse trading agreements where the U.S. is not involved. Perhaps American historical intervention in Latin American has created irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the U.S.-Latin American relationship can be viewed as when a parent wants to live his life through its children, inevitably the children will be unhappy, aloof and perhaps even vengeful.
Early in the cold war Latin American was disillusioned with the U.S., not because of its Cold War policies toward Latin America but by its historical pattern of unfulfilled promises. In 1961, former United States ambassador to Mexico, Robert C. Hill, expressed his believe that Latin American people had become skeptical about the promises of development made by their own government and the United States. The U.S. had made grandiose promises and attempts to aid Latin America. These attempts were viewed as one sided and not in the best interest of those receiving the aid. In 1977, Alejandro Orfilla, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, points out that U.S. policies have been perhaps “too ambitious in scope and, in consequence, their goals were not fully realized in practice." He also states that what Latin Americans might appreciate more than grandiose plans from the U.S. are more convincing policies of interests such as the "good neighbor" policy and the Alliance for Progress. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt encouraged local leaders, investments and the training of armies through his “good neighbor policy. President John F. Kennedy sought to aid Latin American with its social and economic planning to avoid excessive inflation and also to distribute wealth as evenly as possible.
President Carter recognized the need to have good relations with Latin America and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. However, during the Reagan Presidency, in which America enjoyed great strength and growth, U.S. policies had changed little if at all towards Latin America. The Iran-Contra affair sought to fund the Contra-insurgents in Nicaragua. This was a détente attempt against communism in Nicaragua; it was business as usual.
Historically, the U.S.-Latin America relationship has been unsettled but peaceful. Its become apparent to the U.S. government that its old policies of intervention towards Latin America have not worked and that in order to improve this relationship, U.S. priorities must be balanced out with its interest for Latin America. This will create more acceptable U.S. policies for its hemispheric neighbors. On the other hand, Latin American countries seeking U.S. aid and private investments must make an effort to create democratic governments that instill trust and stability.
Works cited
Buckman,Robert T. Latin America 2007. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: Stryker-Post Publications, 2007.
Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.
Hill, Robert C. "Alliance for Freedom." Vital Speeches of the Day 28, no. 4 (December 01, 1961): 104. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
Orfila, Alejandro. "Can Latin America and the United States Modernize Their Traditional Special Relationship?." Vital Speeches of the Day 44, no. 1 (October 15, 1977): 21. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
The Cold War was an ideology war between two super powers and their corresponding form of government. Each opponent sought to ensure its survival at any cost. However, American intervention in Latin American began long before the cold war. The Monroe doctrine in 1823 stated that any power who sought to or attempted “to extend their system to any portion of this hemisphere” would be viewed as a danger to American security. President Roosevelt strengthened the Monroe Doctrine by stating that America was willing to act as a police power to ensure that no system should interfere with the independence of newly established nations, as it is the right of nations who had gained independence to make good use of it. Intervention was indeed embedded in American policies towards Latin American long before the 19th century.
The Truman Doctrine in 1946 ironically states that nations in the world had a choice between two alternative ways of life. “The choice is too often not a free one.” The Truman Doctrine offered support for free people who had to choose between two systems, just as long as the chose capitalism. If nations chose the other way of life then they had to be aided to see the error of their choice. This of course applied to Latin America as well. It appears that these doctrines were hypocritical at the very minimum. It was in the United States best interests to increase the “‘capacity and will of such peoples and nations to resist International Communism’…” America was at war and in order to succeed it did what it had to do to contain the enemy. In doing so it took on the roll of a parent towards Latin America. The Cold War gave America an excuse to further its intervention in Latin American affairs and it encroached on Latin, independent nation’s right to their sovereignty and it did not allow them to make good use of their independence.
It seems apparent that Latin America viewed the United States not as a protective force but as an invasive and overpowering one. A prime example of Latin American sentiment towards the U.S. manifested itself after Chile’s Salvador Allende was elected and decided to nationalize U.S. businesses. President Nixon responded with an economic embargo “which brought Allende sympathy even from non-Marxist Latin Americans. Like Castro, he was viewed as a heroic David standing up to the American Goliath.” Recently, Latin America has opted to endorse trading agreements where the U.S. is not involved. Perhaps American historical intervention in Latin American has created irreconcilable differences. Perhaps the U.S.-Latin American relationship can be viewed as when a parent wants to live his life through its children, inevitably the children will be unhappy, aloof and perhaps even vengeful.
Early in the cold war Latin American was disillusioned with the U.S., not because of its Cold War policies toward Latin America but by its historical pattern of unfulfilled promises. In 1961, former United States ambassador to Mexico, Robert C. Hill, expressed his believe that Latin American people had become skeptical about the promises of development made by their own government and the United States. The U.S. had made grandiose promises and attempts to aid Latin America. These attempts were viewed as one sided and not in the best interest of those receiving the aid. In 1977, Alejandro Orfilla, Secretary General of the Organization of American States, points out that U.S. policies have been perhaps “too ambitious in scope and, in consequence, their goals were not fully realized in practice." He also states that what Latin Americans might appreciate more than grandiose plans from the U.S. are more convincing policies of interests such as the "good neighbor" policy and the Alliance for Progress. President Franklyn D. Roosevelt encouraged local leaders, investments and the training of armies through his “good neighbor policy. President John F. Kennedy sought to aid Latin American with its social and economic planning to avoid excessive inflation and also to distribute wealth as evenly as possible.
President Carter recognized the need to have good relations with Latin America and returned the Panama Canal Zone to Panama. However, during the Reagan Presidency, in which America enjoyed great strength and growth, U.S. policies had changed little if at all towards Latin America. The Iran-Contra affair sought to fund the Contra-insurgents in Nicaragua. This was a détente attempt against communism in Nicaragua; it was business as usual.
Historically, the U.S.-Latin America relationship has been unsettled but peaceful. Its become apparent to the U.S. government that its old policies of intervention towards Latin America have not worked and that in order to improve this relationship, U.S. priorities must be balanced out with its interest for Latin America. This will create more acceptable U.S. policies for its hemispheric neighbors. On the other hand, Latin American countries seeking U.S. aid and private investments must make an effort to create democratic governments that instill trust and stability.
Works cited
Buckman,Robert T. Latin America 2007. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia: Stryker-Post Publications, 2007.
Chasteen, John Charles and Wood, James A. eds. Problems in Modern Latin American History: Sources and Interpretations. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc.,
2004.
Hill, Robert C. "Alliance for Freedom." Vital Speeches of the Day 28, no. 4 (December 01, 1961): 104. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
Orfila, Alejandro. "Can Latin America and the United States Modernize Their Traditional Special Relationship?." Vital Speeches of the Day 44, no. 1 (October 15, 1977): 21. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed June 17, 2008).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)