Race Then, Race Now

The Latin American Revolutions occurred during the 1800’s and between the three countries, Gran Columbia, Mexico, and Brazil.  The essential question for the week was: Why is it essential to acknowledge human value regardless of race? How are the events in the Latin American Revolutions evidence of this social imperative? 

Race was very important to the people back then and there were specific rules for how people were categorized.  We learned about this by observing a series of paintings for different racial

combinations.  The main classes were; Peninsulares: Native Spanish that migrated to colonies who were mostly wealthy and high in rank, Creoles: Pure Spanish who were born in the colonies.  They were wealthy, but not as wealthy as the Peninsulares, Mestizos: A mix of Spanish and Indians.  They were farmers, shopkeepers, and artisans, Mulattoes and Free Blacks:  Mixed African and Spanish.  They were slaves who could buy their freedom, Indians and African slaves were at the bottom of the categorization with forced labor and not much freedom.  To study the impact of race the class spilt into groups and we learned about 3 countries separately.  My group studied the time line of Brazil. 

The timeline our group came up with was:

After completing our own timeline, we shared our timeline with the other groups.  We identified commonalities and differences between Gran Columbia, Mexico, and Brazil.  Some of the commonalities were that all countries wanted independence and they were fighting against the same forces; European countries.  Some differences were that they were led by different groups; peninsulares and creoles.  Also, Mexico and Gran Columbia was republic and Brazil was a constitutional monarchy.  The events that happened in these countries were an example of social imperative because social difference led to the unfair treatment of people.  This continued for generations in a family.  This aroused civil unrest and fighting.  In Gran Colombia, Simon Bolivar is “the Liberator”.  The people who were under his rule were treated unfair in that they felt if their humanity is less than others, then they are less free.  In Mexico, the people fought for independence.  Their leader, Miguel Hidalgo, wanted to get rid of racial inequality.  Once Brazil gained its independence, Pedro, the leader, only allowed peninsulares to be a part of the government which caused the other classes to revolt. 

In society, some judgments are still based on race.  Recently, an African American man was confronted by the New York police for allegedly selling illegal cigarettes.  A video shows that one of the police grabbed the man in a chokehold and without unknowingly killed him as the man was saying repeatedly “I can’t breathe.”  The police officer was cleared of all charges in the end.  Mayor Bill de Blasio said that the grand jury’s decision was “one that many in our city did not want,” but cautioned against “violence and disorder” in its wake.  Being African, having a different colored skin has a lot of impacts in today’s society.  People automatically began stereotyping people because of what they look like and make connections to other issues or matters.  This is pretty significant in society, but it shouldn’t be.  People shouldn’t be judged based on what they look like.  They shouldn’t be labeled or categorized as something because that’s defining people based on what they look like and that’s unfair.  

A Passion for Freedom

     In the eighteen and nineteen hundreds, Mahatma Gandhi was the primary leader of India’s independence movement.  Gandhi peacefully fought the British with his small, but significant actions and played an important role in achieving India’s independence.  Unlike Gandhi, Toussaint Louverture didn’t attempt peaceful resolutions to gain independence from France, but he fought for his country unswervingly and gained independence for Saint Domingue.  Saint Domingue declared its independence on January 1, 1804.  This amazing feat rose from the slave rebellions that Louverture led.  Toussaint Louverture had many qualities that made him a strong leader; he was a great military commander and ruler of Saint Domingue.  However, his work to liberate the slaves was the most significant because it highlights his passion for fighting for what he believes in. 

     Despite being born as a slave himself, Toussaint Louverture rose to become a liberator of slaves.  Toussaint encouraged slaves to fight for their freedom and liberty after the white refused to end slavery in Saint Domingue.  In 1797, Louverture writes to the French Directory when there were whispers that the government was going to reinstate slavery after Robespierre had abolished it.  Toussaint responds a severe letter.  In Toussaint’s opinion, it would be impossible to restore slavery in Saint Domingue because “they bore their chains when they knew no condition of life better than that of slavery.  But today when they have left it, if they had a thousand lives, they would sacrifice them all rather than be subjected again to slavery…”  (Doc B)  The people in Saint Domingue had tasted freedom; they knew what it was like to not work under a master.  It would be impossible to go back to servitudes and constrictions.  If the French Directory reinstates slavery, he declares “We have known how to confront danger to our liberty, and we will know how to confront death to preserve it.”  (Doc B)  The slaves were ready to fight to the death for their freedom.  In the Saint Domingue Constitution of 1801, Toussaint declares “There cannot exist slaves in this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished.  All men are born, live and die free and French.”  (Doc C)  He writes in the constitution how there will be no more slaves and how everyone is born free French men and women.  Toussaint Louverture was a confidant liberator of slave because he believed in independence and always fought for the freedom of the slaves.  

     Another important quality that makes Toussaint a person worth remembering is as a great military commander.  A slave revolt begins Louverture’s legacy.  In 1791, Toussaint joins a slave revolt serving as a doctor to the troops and a commander to a small detachment of slave soldiers.  In 1792, as a military commander, Toussaint gains respect for running a camp and for training his men in both guerrilla warfare and European style.  Finally in 1798, Toussaint defeats the British and becomes ruler of Saint Domingue.  (Doc A) In 1801, Hyacinthe Moyse, nephew of Toussaint led rebels against Toussaint.  They were “discontent with Toussaint’s draconian [cruel] labor policy and gathering suspicion of his friendliness with the white planter class.”  (Doc E) The citizens of Saint Domingue have already worked as slaves before their entire life and they are mad because things haven’t changed even after “gaining their freedom”.  (Doc E)  The former slaves no longer trusted Toussaint.  When the revolts broke out, Toussaint captured his nephew.  He ordered his arrest and execution.  Though Toussaint was a fair and nonbiased commander, he could have done better by addressing the problems of the former slaves before they got out of hand.  A secondary source by William Brown, “A Description of Toussaint Louverture”, describes Toussaint “by his superior knowledge of the character of his race, his humanity, generosity, and courage, had gained the confidence of all whom he had under his command.”  (Doc F)  These traits helped Toussaint gain the confidence and respect of his soldiers.  Toussaint was a confidant and fair military leader who never gave up and fought for his country. 

     Aside from being a brilliant commander and liberator, Toussaint was an unforgettable leader of Saint Domingue.  In 1798, Toussaint becomes the ruler of Saint Domingue.  (Doc A) Being unforgettable though doesn’t mean he was a good leader.  In article 3 of the Saint Domingue Constitution, Toussaint declares freedom to all former slaves.  Contradicting his statement though, in article 15, “Each plantation…shall represent the quiet haven of an active and constant family, of which the owner of the land…shall be the father.”  The previous owners of the land, the whites, are still the owners and the slaves still work for them.  The only difference is that everyone will be treated like family.  Article 28 mentions how Toussaint Louverture was governor of Saint Domingue for life.  He is a smart and good leader, but if he makes a mistake, he is leader for life.  Toussaint’s goal was to keep order.  In the proclamation written in November 25, 1801, Toussaint made some rules, “As soon as a child can walk, he should be employed on the plantation according to his strength in some useful work…”  Former slaves were once again put back to work.  Acts of sedition were brought to court and if a worker ran to another plantation, then they would go to prison.  He enforced strict rules and severe consequences.  Although Toussaint was a strict ruler with severe punishments, he was a significant leader who shall not be forgotten. 

      Toussaint Louverture died in 1802.  French troops captured him in a fight and Louverture was taken to France.  While Louverture was in France, the soldiers in Saint Domingue put up a brilliant fight and won.  Louverture couldn’t join the victory and celebration though.  He was dying from pneumonia in a French cell.  He never knew that two years later on January 1^st, Haiti would become an independent nation.  Like Mahatma Gandhi, Louverture was a great leader who fought for his country.  He should be remembered for his great leadership skills and military commands, but he should be most remembered for his passion to liberate slaves.  

A Survey?

The past week our class was busy working on mini surveys for the class to take.  Each group had a specific topic or event and surveys were created for them through an app called Survey Monkey.  Our main goal was to answer the essential question: Were the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 really failures as many historians have concluded?  My topic was the Frankfurt Assembly in 1848.  We were given general information about the even and also multiple primary sources.  While we read the introduction summary, we kept note of the country, date, goals, opponents, outcomes and whether it was a success or failure.  For every primary source, we gathered evidence and also labeled whether they were related to goals, opponents, or outcomes.  We also highlighted significant quotes and included sourcing information.  Everyone in the class took the surveys and we analyzed the scores that we received. 

Survey Results 

(To view our survey, click here)

The Frankfurt assembly was a group of middle class men who wanted to create a constitutional monarchy in Germany.  The people demanded for national unity and liberal reforms.  During the year of 1848 men debated endlessly on such topics as whether the new Germany should be a republic or a monarchy, and whether or not to include Austria in a united German state.  The assembly presented their offer to King of Prussia, Fredrick William IV.  The King rejected the offer though because the offer came from common people and not from the German princes.  B.S. Berendsohn of Hamburg claimed that, “the king made it perfectly clear that he had no intention of allowing his God-given rule to be diminished by a piece of paper, namely a constitution."  The middle class men revolted and rallied, but they were dissolved under the threat from the Prussian military.  Many people were killed, went to prison, and thousands fled their homeland and immigrated to other countries like the United States where there was promise of a democratic government and economic opportunity. 

Overall, most of the revolutions ended in a partial or complete failure; none of them were successful.  The Decembrist revolution in 1825 was a complete failure because Czar Nicholas I moved too quickly to crush the rebel soldiers and he ended up fired his on his own people.  The 1830 revolutions of France wasn’t a complete failure.  In fact, it was almost a success.  They ended up with the “citizen king” who, at least in the beginning fought for the people.  The King’s policies favored the citizens.  In Hungary 1948, when many Budapest rebels fought for an independent government, they were squashed.  People were imprisoned, executed, or forced into exile.  Not all of the revolutions were a failure, but a lot were.  I think even though many of them failed, they inspired hope for the future.