Week 4: Champions of Latin America?

So when I first read Simon Bolivar's letter to Jamaica, I was a little thrown by the language. It seemed especially calm compared to other revolutionary letters I've read. Most of the time, the letters are filled with passion and excitement, always overly zealous and overwhelming to the audience; but Bolivar's letter seemed much... less? It's hard to articulate but it appeared as if he was being fake humble since Bolivar was asking for money from Jamaica to fund his revolution. He threw himself at the feet of the British which is ironic because the British were exactly like the Spanish — they were both colonial ruling forces. I also really found it enlightening that Bolivar redefined the word slavery for his agenda. I have (and maybe you as well) tendencies to romanticize the past and imagine a pure Latin American revolution not contaminated by corruption, greed, etc. but that's just not true. The elite class were not seeking independence to free the chains of the people, they wanted to find more efficient ways to marginalize and disenfranchise the lower class.

Moreover, what I found the most interesting was Hugo Chavez's speech in 2003. When I first read the entire speech I was enthralled at how passionate he was.... even on paper, I could imagine every word he was saying, I could imagine all the leaders listening to him in rapt attention. I initially really liked him; I liked the message he was portraying, the criticisms of the West's efforts to subjugate Latin America and the anti-imperialist, anti-globalization, anti-neoliberalism sentiments. He was a man of the people, and as a part of the people, how could I not like him? However I learned about the truth of Chavez from my colleagues. How his championing and self-proclamation as a Bolivarian protoge was untrue. Chavez destroyed Venezuela's economy and left the nation in ruins. He made off with over 4.2 billion dollars which is now a dynastic wealth passed down to his daughter. He ruled as a dictator, silencing opposition by jailing them or having them murdered. I again, had to come to terms of me idealizing Latin America, purposely ignoring the complexities and conflicts to match my own agenda (much like Bolivar).

These readings and discussions were really enlightening. I'm trying not to judge history too harshly but it's proving difficult; it seems that Latin America simply exchanged an oppressor for another.

So my questions are:
1) Do you idealize the past? If you do, why do you think it happens?
2) How do we work on not appropriating the past to push forward certain ideals? How can we critically think of the past to keep from losing the complexities of the situation?
3) Does knowing the intentions and motivations of Bolivar and the Creole class for wanting independence lessen the importance of independence? Does it take away from independence at all, or should it still be heralded?
4) Is Chavez truly a man of the people, or am I judging him too harshly? Am I ignoring the complexities of the situation and nuances once again? If I am, why? If I am not, why?
5) Are any independences or revolutions free of ulterior motives? Can you name any that have been pure in execution and form?
6) How do some of the richest economic countries, like Venezuela or Haiti end up suffering so much in contemporary times? What are they doing wrong? Why is this happening to them?