Struggle for Independence in Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil (Thesis Sample)
Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil all faced independence from their European colonists at roughly the same time. In a four to six page, thesis-based essay, choose two of the three and compare the ways they achieved independence. How did the way these new Latin American states gain independence affect their history in the nineteenth century and what do you believe was the most important underlying factor? explain as if it were a debate. Chicago style citation.source..
Struggle for Independence in Mexico and Brazil
Countries used different approaches in the attempts to gain independence. Brazil for instance was a colony of Portugal, and its struggle for the independence was different to that of the other Latin countries. This can be directed to the soft tactics used by the Brazilian resistance movement in the struggle for the independence and how effective they were. Mexico, on the other hand, was a Spanish colony that embraced hard resistance strategy in its efforts to achieve the independence. The different approaches used by different countries in the Latin America were critical in their struggle for the independence. Both Brazil and Mexico embraced different strategies and approaches in their struggle to achieve full independence from their colonists, Portugal and Spain respectively. While Brazil and Mexico gained independence almost at the same time, the bloodshed and execution carried out in their struggle is a major critical factor that ought to be considered owing to the point that regardless of the fact that the tactics applied were different, the ultimate goal was achieved.
Comparison of struggle for independence in Mexico and Brazil
Napoleon conquered Mexico and consequently became a Spanish colony. By being a Spanish colony, Mexico lost its full autonomy as its colonialist controlled it. The loss of independence resulted in various legislation that greatly undermined the Mexico regarding its political, economic and cultural principles attributed to various violations of human rights that came along with the Spanish colonialist. The country used mass demonstrations in the attempts to kick the Spanish out of their land, a phenomenon that led to massive bloodshed as the major campaigners for the independence were executed. The approach that Mexicans used did not give any room for the discussion of the contentious issues affecting Mexicans. With that, they had to be coerced in order to curb the violent approaches and thereby give a room for negotiation.
On the other hand, Brazil achieved its independence without any bloodshed. The colony status attached to Brazil in 1808 can be attributed to the Napoleon family fleeing to Portugal, where they caused the Portuguese monarchy to flee to Brazil and establish an authority. The king established a monarchy in Brazil under the leadership of Joao where he tried to maintain an increasing opportunity to all especially on funding public education that was inclusive of the military academics, art schools, and medical schools. Joao made Brazil a self-governing kingdom within the Portuguese Empire. In 1820, the liberals took over the Portuguese government. Joao was determined to maintain his throne back in France after the defeat of Napoleon. With that respect, he left for France and the powers in Brazil were handed over to Dom Pedro, his 23 years old son who later gave back power to the Brazilians in 1822. This act reveals that unlike Mexico, Brazil did not embrace bloodshed in their struggle for independence given the fact that Joao maintained that the Portuguese Government would not send military forces into Brazil.
The use of the catholic priest was common in Mexico struggle for independence. In September 16th, 1810, Father Miguel Hidalgo made the first call for the Mexican independence. In his speech, Father Hidalgo called for a fight against the Spanish Peninsulares, where he established that the growing violation of the Mexicans human rights was against their beliefs and cultural norms given that the Mexico had a common virtue of unifying different communities. Mexicans leaders embraced this speech as Catholic Fathers had great influence in the nation and organized for a massive revolution. With that respect, the Spanish rulers executed Father Hidalgo to curb the major revolution that was arising. Conversely, Brazil’s strategy was to involve the state officers in signing deals with the Portuguese government. Through that, trade agreements were signed leading to positive economic effect and low cases of violence. The state officers did not call for the mass action but rather unified the people to establish ways both states could benefit. This approach differed with the Mexican in terms of the mutual interest built between the two nations.
The strategies used by Brazil and Mexico varied in terms of the approaches used to eliminate their colonialists. In Brazil for instance, the role of Great Britain cannot be undermined. Great Britain came to Brazil and urged Portuguese government to surrender their powers, a phenomenon that led to Brazil attaining full independent. In reference to Mexico however, no foreign support was used. The fact that they mostly engaged violent strategies implies that their approaches were not as attractive as that of the Brazil. Foreign countries were thus not willing to support their independence quest. Mexico had to push for their independence through various opposition movements lead by the Catholic Fathers. Consequently massive bloodshed came in given the fact that Spain was not willing to issue independence to Mexico yet.
In reference to the struggle for independence in Brazil and Mexico, it is evident that soft tactics were used in Brazil which is highly attributed to Joao leadership approach in the perspective that he viewed Brazil colony as an equal partner. In that, the colony was treated with utmost respect and viewed as a trading partner. On the other hand, Spain undermined the existence of the Mexicans, an act that prompted various inhumane actions towards those who resisted. The Mexicans approach involved an act of violence in their struggle of independence. Catholic priest had a major influence and, therefore, were accorded the responsibility to lead the revolution movement. As a result, the public desire to grant full independence was accelerated by the thoughts of the religious leaders which lead to massive bloodshed given that Spanish authorities were not willing to grant independence so easily.
How did the way these new Latin American states gain independence affect their history in the Nineteenth Century?
Soft protest strategies adopted by Brazil versus the forceful revolution used by Mexico
Brazil use of soft strategies in the achievement of its independence was attractive to other foreign countries in assisting for their quest for independence, for example, Great Britain. The king of Portugal too viewed the country friendly, by that he established a strong economic tie between the two nations on trade agreement thereby enabling Brazil to perform exemplary well economically in the post-independence era.
On the other hand, the violence approach adopted by the Mexican resulted to massive hatred between the colonial master and the Mexicans. It was not possible to build a positive relationship out of the two countries. In that great hostility existed between Mexico and Spain in the post-colonial era in the 19th century. Consequently, the Mexican environment could not stabilize fast regarding its economic growth on the terms that it was a young nation without any foreign support. Accelerating growth proved to be very difficult for Mexico.
Authoritarian leadership (Spanish) versus F...