Ap World History Dbq

1. Why was the French Empire ultimately so much less successful than either the Spanish or the British Empires?

Latin America has a long and complex history. From the early 1500s to 1888 there have been many political changes (foreign control, political ideology, slavery) and some continuities (central control), but the changes have had a greater effect because independent nations were able to establish themselves and form their own governments. Globally, the European Industrial Revolution was taking place which allowed for a political advantage because the new technologies could give the European governments stronger control over their colonies.

As Charles Bergquist observes, "Crises in Colombia tend to generate cycles of violence instead of mutations in the political regime." The reason is simple: regime changes in Colombia tend to produce very little change in anything other than nominal rule. Since Colombia's independence from Spain in the early 19th century, Colombia has seen a series of civil wars and secessions (Venezuela, Ecuador, and Panama the last coming rather conveniently at a time when the U.S. was prepared to pay millions for a canal through its nation preparation that later resulted in a multi-million dollar redress to Columbia). Colombia's political history, therefore, has been colored by outside influences pulling on the two dominant liberal and conservative parties, with violent exchanges, and long periods of instability being the consequences. While regime changes have occurred, they have not produced significant improvements. Rather, Colombia in the 20th century has become a nesting ground for paramilitary forces and drug traffickers, with U.S. Central Intelligence operatives contributing heavily to the violent conflict that has risen between regimes. This paper will examine the regime types that preceded the Rojas Pinilla regime in mid-20th century Colombia, analyze their similarities and differences, and discuss the extent to which Rojas Pinilla reached his goals and objectives.

Throughout the 1800s Latin America was trying to catch up with the rest of the Western world, progressing with increased exports, manufacturing, and industrialization. These advances did not stop the internal problems of most Latin nations. With these changes, as in the rest of the world, there was a growth in urban populations and in the middle class, adding another layer in the social structure; which in turn is just another group that will vie for power, and benefits from the government (180-90). This period is characterized with a large amount of wealth being concentrated in the hands of a few, which on paper shows great economic progress in the form of a GDP number, but there was still great wealth disparity. The switch, in Latin America, from conservatives in the early part of the 1800s, to liberals for the latter half, eventually turned to authoritarian governance; the democratic goals liberals set out to achieve were trashed for power and economic benefits, in keeping with previous generations (191).

Creole leaders anticipated for the hierarchy to stay in place after independence because they wanted to become the leaders of the nations. A nation that kept the social hierarchy after Independence was Brazil which had become an independent monarchy with Pedro I as their emperor. A year prior to 1889, a law was passed that abolished slavery within the region which eventually led to Brazil’s monarchy to collapse and soon right after, “In November 1889, the military proclaimed a republic.” During post colonialism, Liberalism started to make its way through Latin America. “Liberty. Equality. Popular Sovereignty. America for Americans.” were a few concepts that represented it. Liberal governments ruled most regions in Latin America, but often failed as they were changed every few years. Conflicts within new rising governments were often caused by the ideas Liberals and Conservatives had on specific topics, one being the amount of power given to the Church. Liberals desired to have the “freedom of worship and the separation of church and state” while conservatives “wanted Catholicism to remain the official religion of the new republics.” Liberals were influenced by progressive models while conservatives stayed with the old colonial model. Although liberalism wasn’t successful during the beginning of Independence, it managed to make its way back during the era of Progress, but not soon

6. The roles of the military in the governments in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico had some similarities and differences. First starting out with Brazil, military dictators had played a major role in their governments fro about twenty years. Brazil was ruled by military dictators. This dictators, put importance on the economy growing, and they promoted some foreign investments. They showed this by beginning large projects that were located in the Amazon jungle. Because of these actions, the economy now did just as they hoped that it would. How every this economic advancements did have a couple negatives. Now, the governments stopped the wages, and they also held back on the social events. This then caused a downgrade in the standards of the normal

Every war brings some aftermath like many casualties, destruction of the infrastructure, and considerable reduction of the population, specifically males. It is also common that the civilian population stand against the opponent that is trying to seize its country. The American Civil War produced these results within the American country. When the war ended, the rich Southerners started to deal with circumstances that they were not ready. A common though grew into the Southerners haggard's hearts to escape from the Bayonet Rule imposed from the Northerners: migration. Brazil was an option because it is a continental country in South America with a mixed population where the Emperor was supporting the migration. This American migration to Brazil would deeply affect the country. The American Civil War influenced Brazil and the Brazilian Armed Forces.

With the increase in industrialization, particularly rail roads and steam boats, Latin America could efficiently export more goods. The installation of railroads and increased trade stabilized the economy of many countries. As long as Europe and the United States required raw materials, the economy would continue to grow. With the economy growing, political stability followed. This is demonstrated in Chasteen’s essay “Governance did become more orderly. As the profits of the export boom rose, government revenues from import/export taxes rose too…Higher government revenues afforded middle-class people new employment opportunities…Greater stability and prosperity attracted further investment from aboard intensifying trade, and the cycle repeated itself” (Chasteen, 207). As more money flowed into the continent, the more the government improved. Using the available revenue from the export boom, local governments could afford better equipment and put down rebellions with less casualties. The government was better able to provide more individuals with employment opportunities, thus stabilizing the politics in the Spanish Americas.

During Brazil’s 20 years of military rule, the army had almost complete control and congress had little power. Since 1985 the government has been in the hands of civilians. Brazil is a federal republic under the leadership of a president whose powers are similar to those of the president of the United States. A vice-president and the cabinet consisting of state ministers support the president. The government is divided into

The independence, nation building, and the economy were three major settings during Latin America in the 1820’s. During this time Latin America was faced with the chance of change. Traditional Monarchical structure was merged into the Portuguese and Spanish colonial empires. The way that theses territories responded to change was distinctive to the region.

Brazil is a federal republic with a three levels' government, a political structure roughly equivalent to the one existing in the United States. In both countries there are requirements of national policy and the need to solve economic problems, which go beyond the jurisdiction of a federal system, had revealed considerable strain. Under Vargas's regime, the country's status was reduced to that of districts controlled by federal appointments. The States' rights were cut down sharply by a ceremonial burning of their flags. Under the 1946 Constitution, federalism raised again. This development was probably a response to the centralized power of one-man that occurred during Vargas's rule, but can also be justified easily by the country's extension

Like in Venezuela 's transition from a military dictatorship to a democracy, a country 's transformation can be broken down into three phases: a preparatory phase where the country 's leaders engage in a prolonged and inconclusive political struggle (Rustow 1970 : 352), such as the 1958 Venezuelan coup d 'état; a decision phase where the country 's leaders decide in favor of democracy, such as the Venezuelan general elections of 1958 and the transition of power from the interim military leader to the elected one; and finally a habituation phase where the country 's leaders and the citizens learn from successful resolutions and put their faith into the new rules, such as Venezuela 's establishment of a governing board after the 1958 coup d 'état to form a Democracy and hold elections. While Venezuela was able to successfully move through the three stages of democratic transformation, with the rise of the Bolivarian Revolution, the country has moved into a “gray zone” and has once again entered the preparatory phase where it could backslide fully into a full dictatorship.

The most important information in this chapter primarily discusses the new liberal themed republics in Latin America countries except Brazil and their unsuccessful effect on the nation. The author correspondingly comments on the newly independent governments, challenges and lack of resources explaining why democracy and liberalism were unlikely to happen due to the entrenched conservative’s hierarchies of the time.

In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, social mobility across various Latin America countries intensified as civilians, and militant groups sought to overthrow corrupt governments and attempted to acquire political rights and equal involvement. This was apparent in Mexico, Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Nicaragua, and many other countries were prolong internal conflicts have reflected the bitter social and class divisions (Fukuyama 267). For instance, in Argentina during the 1930s the military became autonomous and could protect its interests from the influence of politicians. Thus, the Argentine army was unhappy with president’s Hipólito Yrigoyen’s rule and interference in the military sector. Therefore, this resulted in a military coup

Democracy has been struggling to make an appearance in several places in the world. The Latin American countries in particular, have all been led by some form of a military-run government. In all three countries including Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico, democracy has taken a long time to catch on. Although even today, their democracies aren’t perfect, they all have made an effort to make the switch. There are many similarities and differences that the roles of the military in the governments of Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina played.