Sunday, June 28, 2009

Honduras

"The military coup that took place in Honduras this morning (Sunday, June 28), was led by School of the Americas graduate Romeo Vasquez. Obama's statement fell short of calling for the reinstatement of Zelaya as the legitimate president. Do you still think the CIA was not involved?"
Posted by at

68 comments:

  1. anandJune 28, 2009 at 9:41 PM

    As of now, I don't know what is happening in Hunduras.

    ReplyDelete
  2. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 10:19 PM

    According to the reports in the news, this Mel Zelaya was going ahead with a referendum that the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled as illegal.

    ReplyDelete
  3. vJune 28, 2009 at 11:00 PM

    First referendum is not the province of the Supreme Court, and secondly the court does not hold the power of 80% of the people. The Constitution was forged under occupation and proves itself corrupt by the denial of the will of the people.  You should be ashamed of yourself vza for defending an oppressive system like this, how do you even look in a mirror?

    ReplyDelete
  4. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:04 PM

    Oh get a grip! Who is defending anything? And who claims to hold 80% of the power of the people? They are telling a big lie.

    ReplyDelete
  5. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:10 PM

    Pensieve

    http://blog.aeortiz.com/

    ReplyDelete
  6. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:12 PM

    A blog with lots of links about the situation in Honduras


    http://faustasblog.com/?p=13639

    ReplyDelete
  7. vJune 28, 2009 at 11:18 PM

    Shame on you vza

    ReplyDelete
  8. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:26 PM

    Now THIS is really interesting. If Zelaya claimed this and then he was ousted after all..how can any of his pals( You know who) now claim it was the U.S. behind it? Just asking.

    RPT-Honduras's Zelaya says US helped thwart coup-paper
    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LS355357.htm

    ReplyDelete
  9. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:28 PM

    Tsk. Tsk. Must keep your mind open to alternative points of view, v. Can any of us speak with authority about what is going on there? I will be skeptical of both sides until I have a the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:32 PM

    The military's dramatic move came after President Zelaya sacked the chief of the army, Gen Romeo Vasquez, on Wednesday for refusing to help him organise the referendum.
    A day later, the Honduran Congress approved plans to investigate whether the president should be declared unfit to rule.
    In an interview with Spain's El Pais newspaper published on Sunday, Mr Zelaya said a plot to topple him had been thwarted after the US refused to back it.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8123126.stm

    ReplyDelete
  11. vJune 28, 2009 at 11:33 PM

    It is not an "alternative view" vza, it is more of the same oppression of the people in the Americas, of which there is a record a mile long with the same activity over, and over, and over again. So in short vza, your frame of "alternative view" is complete bullshit. Sorry excuse for a human being.

    ReplyDelete
  12. vJune 28, 2009 at 11:36 PM

    You are not aware of the techniques of plausible denail at this stage of the game? Here is where your claim falls short, it is part of this article TGIA posted -

    "While the <span>European Union</span> and several Latin American governments just came out in support of President Zelaya and spoke out against the coup, a statement that was just issued by <span>Barack Obama</span> fell short of calling for the reinstatement of Zelaya as the legitimate president."

    ReplyDelete
  13. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:41 PM

    Tsk. Tsk. Must keep your mind open to alternative points of view, v. Can any of us speak with authority about what is going on there? I will be skeptical of both sides until I have  the facts.

    ReplyDelete
  14. vzaJune 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM

    Yeah, this coming from a a guy who defends the likes of Robert Mugagbe. Get lost or grow up.

    ReplyDelete
  15. vJune 28, 2009 at 11:53 PM

    Here is your answer vza - you do not know anything about this situation, nor Mugabe, ok? :)   You live in a complete dream world, made espcially for you by your masters.

    ReplyDelete
  16. vJune 29, 2009 at 12:02 AM

    You are not aware of the techniques of plausible denial at this stage of the game? Here is where your claim falls short, it is part of this article TGIA posted - 
     
    "While the <span>European Union</span> and several Latin American governments just came out in support of President Zelaya and spoke out against the coup, a statement that was just issued by <span>Barack Obama</span> fell short of calling for the reinstatement of Zelaya as the legitimate president."

    ReplyDelete
  17. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 4:32 AM

    Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, too.

    ReplyDelete
  18. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 4:36 AM

    According to the US State Department, there reportedly exist in Honduras...

    politicization of the judiciary, as well as judicial corruption and institutional weakness;

    ReplyDelete
  19. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 4:41 AM

    Yep, give the Iranian opposition the benefit of the doubt, but swiftly call into question the legitimately elected gov't of Honduras.

    Alas a wingnut.

    ReplyDelete
  20. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 4:54 AM

    Yep, give the Iranian opposition the benefit of the doubt, but swiftly call into question the legitimately elected gov't of Honduras. 
     
    I guess it doesn't matter what the neighbors of the region have to say about this matter, despite the fact that this action affects us as much (or probably even more) than it affects the Hondurans.  This bodes ill for future inter-american relations.

    ReplyDelete
  21. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 7:37 AM

    The Honduran constitution says that the President of the country must have been born there.  The Micheletti fellow who was sworn in was born in Italy. 

    ReplyDelete
  22. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 8:00 AM

    http://www.youtube.com/v/JtoWszYvTls&feature

    ReplyDelete
  23. vJune 29, 2009 at 8:48 AM

    Hey, at least she is consistent Mara - she consistently believes every single lie that comes out of the stinking hell she bows down to. So, you can be thankful that there are no surprises -

    http://www.soaw.org/presente/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=217

    Obama's First Coup

    ReplyDelete
  24. vJune 29, 2009 at 9:00 AM

    <span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; ">"Telephones and electricity are being cut off”, confirmed Rodas just minutes ago via Telesur. “The media are showing cartoons and soap operas and are not informing the people of Honduras about what is happening”. The situation is eerily reminiscent of the April 2002 coup d’etat against President Chávez in Venezuela, when the media played a key role by first manipulating information to support the coup and then later blacking out all information when the people began protesting and eventually overcame and defeated the coup forces, rescuing Chávez (who had also been kidnapped by the military) and restoring constitutional order." </span></span>

    From above link

    ReplyDelete
  25. anandJune 29, 2009 at 9:58 AM

    I still haven't a clue what happened. I heard the former Honduran President on BBC radio. He claimed that the US was supporting him as the sole legitmate leader of Honduras 100%. He made a big deal of it, and insisted that the US did not support the people behind the coups. He is urging other countries to follow Obama's example.

    I don't get what is happening. Most in Congress (the legislature) seem to support the coups according to the BBC. The Supreme Court is reported to have authorized it.

    However, since Obama is backing the deposed president, I hope that the deposed president and Congress can reach some kind of deal. He only has one year left in his term. Why can't the Congress just let him complete his term. It is illegal for him to run for reelection.

    Part of what is happening is the nonbinding referendum, which the polls suggest is very close. What is the point of a nonbinding referendum? Assuming it passes 51% to 49% (which from the BBC report wasn't a sure thing), what relavence is that to ammending the constitution?

    Again, I can't figure out what is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  26. anandJune 29, 2009 at 10:03 AM

    President Zelaya is on BBC claiming that Obama only recognizes him as the legitimate president of Honduras.

    At the same time, Chavez made a big speach . . . that seemed over the top. I suspect President Zelaya would rather Chavez shut up with the theatrics. I don't think it plays well in Honduras.

    Chavez should call up President Zelaya and President Obama and brain storm the most effective strategy to help President Zelaya serve out his remaining year in office. It is important for Zelaya to prove his independence from Chavez , the US and other foreign powers to the Honduran people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 10:18 AM

    Usually when one can't figure out what is happening, it is because there are crucial behind-the-scenes actions which we are not allowed to see. 

    If you aren't given to attacks of ad-hominem,  I would venture that this source is probably close to the truth (despite the denial of it by the deposed President):

    it seems like in the particular coup scenario, Obama has lost control. The US Military Group and Embassy in Honduras have been directly involved with the coup leaders. USAID and the Pentagon have backed this coup, there is just really no question. The Honduran military would never have moved with consent from their commanding officers, the US Military Group in Honduras and those stationed on the Soto Cano base.

    ReplyDelete
  28. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 10:20 AM

    Zelaya broke the law. The military getting involved seems a very bad idea. I do not know what provisions the Honduran constitution has for removing a president from office but it seems to me, whatever it is, that should have been followed first.

    ReplyDelete
  29. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 10:34 AM

    I would hardly call a passionate supporter of Chavez an unbiased, reliable source for the truth. Unless she shows some facts to back up her claim that USAID and the Pentagaon backed this coup, her thoughts are mere speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  30. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 10:40 AM

    And the moon is made of cheese.

    ReplyDelete
  31. vJune 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM

    He did not break any law - you know, I am tired of explaining the real issues with you vza, you have your head parked so far up your ass, or the ass of this system it is like corresponding with a retard. There is nothing illegal about a referendum ditz, it was a damned inquery, the judicial had no right to do what it did nor the congress neither which represent the people -

    <span style="font-family: Arial;"><span style="font-family: Verdana; "> "Supposedly at the center of the controversary is today’s scheduled referendum, which is not a binding vote but merely an opinion poll to determine whether or not a majority of Hondurans desire to eventually enter into a process to modify their constitution."</span></span>

    Perhaps if you pulled your head out of the ass of this system you would get some fresh air, which would cause you to think rational and clearer...lol

    ReplyDelete
  32. FUBARJune 29, 2009 at 10:52 AM

    http://www.democracynow.org/2009/6/29/coup_in_honduras_military_ousts_president

    Coup in Honduras: Military Ousts President Manuel Zelaya, Supporters Defy Curfew and Take to the Streets

    ReplyDelete
  33. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 11:09 AM

    Hahaha, Rapid action disinformation diva, Eva Golinger! So unbiased, so above a little propaganda. Give me a break! I get it now. You aren't against propaganda...just USA & USA allies propaganda. You aren't aganst intervention in another country's affairs, only USA intervention. Chavez, Si'  USA, NO!   Got it. All clear.

    ReplyDelete
  34. vJune 29, 2009 at 11:22 AM

    Get lost with your "oh it is only the US" bullshit, next it will be a trip around the world, idiot...lol

    ReplyDelete
  35. vJune 29, 2009 at 11:24 AM

    I notice that Hillary is "condemnig" the act, but there is no demand to reinstate the President. Acting as if "gee, we had nothing to do with it," is this the new coup format?

    ReplyDelete
  36. vJune 29, 2009 at 11:34 AM

    DO IT - DENY IT - COMDEMN IT - BUT DO NOT REINSTATE THE PRESIDENT

    ReplyDelete
  37. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 11:59 AM

    Blah, blah, blah. It is possible to believe at the same time that Zelaya and the coup organizers are BOTH wrong! All of this, it seems to me, should have been handled within the confines of the LAW.

    ReplyDelete
  38. vJune 29, 2009 at 1:23 PM

    There is no rule of law in the USA or any one of these puppet regimes, it is a figment of your imagination - about as valid as the divine right of kings....lol

    ReplyDelete
  39. vJune 29, 2009 at 1:37 PM

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090629/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_honduras_coup

    "U.S. Secretary of <span style="border-bottom: 1px dashed #0066cc; cursor: pointer;">State Hillary Rodham Clinton</span> said the U.S. was working for "full restoration of democratic order in Honduras."

    U.S. diplomats said they are trying to ensure Zelaya's safety and get him restored as president. Clinton signalled, however, the U.S. wasn't siding fully with Zelaya, who had rejected several <span>Supreme Court decisions</span> before being overthrown.

    "There are certain concerns about orders by independent judicial officials that should be followed," Clinton said. "But the extraordinary step taken of arresting and expelling the president is our first and foremost concern right now.""

    PARDON ME - BUT FUCK YOU MADAM SECRETARY

    ReplyDelete
  40. vJune 29, 2009 at 1:43 PM

    Be sure to put the president back in the "constitutional" box that was created back in the 80's to enslave the people of Honduras to the will of the elite few that bow to DC. Hell, even if you ask the question of change as in a referendum, you get a coup. Amazing - hey, has anyone experienced that wonderful change yet in the USA or around the world with this administration?

    ReplyDelete
  41. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    They are speculation, like everything else that has been said.  There is such a thing as informed speculation.

    ReplyDelete
  42. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 2:39 PM

    vza,
    On the one hand, Honduras had this type of government when that constitution was passed. 

    On the other hand, George Bush arguably violated the US constitution with his surveillance program and should have been impeached (in my opinion).  If enough people were to have thought like me but wanted Bush removed (let's say), would that be kosher?  Of course NOT!  All of the arguments I hear coming out of Honduras do not justify the army's intervention.  A non-binding referendum is a reason for removal?  Utterly ridiculous!  The guy's support had dwindled to 1/4 of the electorate?  How many US Presidents have lost support and yet stayed out their term (Bush is a prime example again).  And the scare stories of a Chavez/Castro invasion.  Patently ridiculous!  Actually, I read nothing of an invasion but saw accusations of interference.  Has anyone documented the interference?  And if it happened, so what!!??  The US ambassador to El Salvador was hyperactively interfereing during the run-up to the last election, but did it affect the outcome. 

    ReplyDelete
  43. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 2:51 PM

    Ad Hominem is a logical fallacy. 
    Have you read her book?  Just because she doesn't think like you doesn't mean she doesn't make some good points.  One of the most trusted intellectuals of Latin America I know is a gringo that taught in University of the Andes (and still lives in Merida).  He is a harsh critic of the Chavez government but knows when to give credit, too.  He confirmed to me some details of what Golinger wrote in her book.  He is invited to Havana as well as to Miami to speak on Latin American history.  I myself quote conservatives when I feel they have something to say (some of them used to be quite competent).  While intellectuals inevitably have their own agenda, in the classroom we do not (or should not) engage in ad hominem. 

    ReplyDelete
  44. vJune 29, 2009 at 2:58 PM

    Or I should say - there is plenty of law for you and I, and these other "underling" countries, just none for those above the law :)

    ReplyDelete
  45. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 4:00 PM

    True

    ReplyDelete
  46. vJune 29, 2009 at 4:23 PM

    "Oh, we tried, but the government of Honduras did not listen to us, they went ahead with the coup...boo hoo, boo hoo" - what utter bullshit. You know how "wild and independent" those totally dependent countries are...lol Come on now, someone tell me that you believe this, and I have some things to sell you - that will be the best deals of your life :)

    ReplyDelete
  47. mollyJune 29, 2009 at 6:14 PM

    Good points, Mara.  Criticize the ideas, not the person.  

    ReplyDelete
  48. vJune 29, 2009 at 6:38 PM

    http://www.youtube.com/v/txuBxUOYUWY


    "We have learned to love you
    from the heights of history,
    with the sun of your bravery
    you laid siege to death

    Che, the deep transparency of your presence
    became clear here,
    you are our leader,
    Commandante Che Guevara.

    You come burning the winds
    with spring suns,
    to plant your flag,
    with the light of your smile

    Che, the deep transparency of your presence
    became clear here,
    you are our leader,
    Commandante Che Guevara.

    Your revolutionary love
    leads you to a new undertaking,
    where they are awaiting the firmness,
    of your liberating arm.

    Che, the deep transparency  of your presence,
    became clear here,
    you are our leader,
    Commandante Che Guevara.

    We will carry on
    as we did along with you,
    and with Fidel we say to you,
    until always Commandate.

    Che, the deep transparency of your presence,
    became clear now,
    you are our leader,
    Commandante Che Guevara."

    DIED TO BE IMMORTAL

    ReplyDelete
  49. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 7:40 PM

    The criticism toward Golinger is encapsulated in the accusations levelled against her from Alek Boyd.  Whether she may or may not have been paid money by the Venezuelan gov't, it is true that Chavez helped give her book as wide a reception as possible (everyone has a right to act in their own self interest).  While wingnuts can focus their energies on the finer points of what they perceive as constituting compromised authority or compromised academic credentials (which Boyd has done on other occasions), the money quote for me is this answer by Boyd in response to the question:

    Q: Do you consider Eva Golinger's allegations in her book, The Chávez Code, concerning United States intervention in the events of April 11, to be false?

    AB: They are not false as pertains to the knowledge which the Government of the United States had about what was happening in Venezuela.

    ReplyDelete
  50. MaracatuJune 29, 2009 at 8:09 PM

    The contentious part comes after that:

    What I [Alek Boyd] do consider tendentious are her allegations concerning funds delivered to different parties and NGO’s. Those donations were made by the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID, organizations of a bipartisan nature and therefore are not illegal. Furthermore, the view that the funds received were for attempting the overthrow of the Chávez government is completely false.

    Rather than get into a big mud slinging contest over that, it shouldn't be too hard for anyone to imagine the US authorities not wanting to consign in parchment and ink: "these monies are for the express purpose of overthrowing ... Chavez" :)

    So where does that leave us?  Let me just say that standard USAID "convocatorias" (can't remember the Eng. translation!) are in the public domain.  I will reproduce for you an example of one that was used for a Cuban ...ummm ... "program" and let you reach your own conclusion:

    The purpose of this APS is to support programs that expand the reach and impact of independent civil society in Cuba, and thereby hasten a peaceful transition to democracy. Successful Applicants will provide assistance to Cuban individuals or independent Cuban NGOs. In full compliance with U.S. Government policies, Applicants will undertake activities to: (1) Break the information blockade by increasing access to, and the flow of, accurate information on democracy, human rights, and free enterprise to, from, and within Cuba, including through independent uncensored access to the Internet particularly with the provision of innovative technology capable of by-passing Cuban Government restrictions. (2) Support advocacy efforts in Cuba that educate, train, provide equipment, and promote adoption of democratic rule of law, free market principles and internationally recognized human rights standards.

    ReplyDelete
  51. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 8:11 PM

    "All of the arguments I hear coming out of Honduras do not justify the army's intervention."

    I never said the army's intervention was justified.



    "And if it happened, so what!!??"

    Well then, I guess you are okay with U.S. interference?

    ReplyDelete
  52. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 9:27 PM

    Response to 4:51:15

    I am sure I did not say I could not agree with anything Golinger writes.  I still read her article and would not hesitate to read others. I am not, however, going to take her word for it that the U.S. was behind the coup.
    No ad hominem attacks? I am all for it, if it's not selectively applied. I am not sure calling people wingnuts demonstrates good faith on that issue, though.

    As far as listening to and being open to opposing views...well yes, good idea! I will remember that the next time I post a defense of some action taken under the Bush administration!
    I still think one of the wisest and most pragmatic statements on dealing with the occupation in Iraq was made by the Iraqi Communist Party and I am certainly no fan of communism....so definitely let us listen to the views of the other.
    Finally, we are not in a classroom nor are we following the Oxford Union debate rules. We are commenting on a blog... and after all, it is just a blog.
    I cannot help but wonder why others here have never been the beneficiary of this little lesson on the, argument against the man? Surely I cannot be the only one guilty of a logical fallacy in the form of an ad hominem attack?  
    O:-)

    ReplyDelete
  53. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 9:59 PM

    Your revolutionary love  
    leads you to a new undertaking,  
    where they are awaiting the firmness,  
    of your liberating arm.


    Oh yes, that liberating arm! The liberating arm that liberated farmers and altar boys from their lives on this earth. Very firm, indeed, when he held the guns to their heads and executed them.(Gag)

    ReplyDelete
  54. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 10:00 PM

    Your revolutionary love   
    leads you to a new undertaking,   
    where they are awaiting the firmness,   
    of your liberating arm.      
     
    Oh yes, that liberating arm!
    The liberating arm that liberated farmers and altar boys from their lives on this earth. Very firm, indeed, when he held the guns to their heads and executed them.

    ReplyDelete
  55. vzaJune 29, 2009 at 10:00 PM

    Your revolutionary love    
    leads you to a new undertaking,    
    where they are awaiting the firmness,    
    of your liberating arm.       
      
    Oh yes, that liberating arm! 
    The liberating arm that liberated farmers and altar boys from their lives on this earth. Very firm, indeed, when he held the guns to their heads and executed them.

    ReplyDelete
  56. vJune 30, 2009 at 1:19 AM

    Much less than who you assign to execution without a conscience all over the world with your words vza, the absense of shame and embarassment as well as support of unending rivers of human blood.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Maracatú des CaraïbesJune 30, 2009 at 8:26 AM

    Ha!

    That is a good one.

    On that point, I actually don't know what to think.  I'll just say that as long as the interference isn't military or extra-judicial.  Some of the stuff I have seen stated is outright bizarre (which is typical of the hysteria we sometimes hear from the upper classes of our region - Puerto Ricans were told by their elites that Castro actually ate babies!)

    ReplyDelete
  58. MaracatuJuly 1, 2009 at 5:01 AM

    I can't speak for others, but since you (obviously) have such an interest in our region, you might want to brush up on the history of it.  I use Lester Langley's books in my class when I teach the history of US - Caribbean relations.  His is an example of a US view which is sometimes criticized for being that of an apologist for US actions.  Funny thing is that he cannot deny the past and at least does a good job of highlighting the most salient events and reflecting the "views of the natives".  Here are a few of his reviews of other books, one of which I wish to highlight:

    Recounting the history of the American "empire" in the Caribbean Basin, the author stresses that the United States failed not so much because of the use of force (the whole undertaking was rather reluctant at best), but because of cultural and psychological realities: "Striving to teach by example, they found it necessary to denigrate the cultural values of those whom they had come to save." Their presence thus stripped Caribbean peoples of their dignity and "constituted an unspoken American judgment of Caribbean inferiority. . . ."

    Notwithstanding the above, there are many excellent books by Caribbean authors on the same subject which are unfortunately out of print.  One of the few institutions of the region which is bringing them back to print is Casa de las Americas in Cuba.  Despite your knee jerk reaction to Cuba under Castro, the country does have a an intelligentsia that is genuine and not unconditionally married to the revolution.  We collaborate with them all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  59. MaracatuJuly 1, 2009 at 5:08 AM

    Well, but in another breath you said:

    I am sure I did not say I could not agree with anything Golinger writes.

    So you do agree with disinformation diva on some things? 8-)

    ReplyDelete
  60. MaracatuJuly 1, 2009 at 6:23 AM

    I still think one of the wisest and most pragmatic statements on dealing with the occupation in Iraq was made by the Iraqi Communist Party

    Communists are not a uniform "species".  And, assuming they were "uniform", weren't they also the ones that invaded and occupied Afghanistan, among others?  I also recall a certain brand of communist (ie. Trotskyists) that joined the neoconservative "phenomenon".

    ReplyDelete
  61. MaracatuJuly 1, 2009 at 6:30 AM

    errata - should read reviews of his books by others

    ReplyDelete
  62. vzaJuly 1, 2009 at 12:43 PM

    Thanks for the tip. Langley's, The Americas in the Age of Revolution 1750-1850 would be of particular interest to me.

    ReplyDelete
  63. MaracatuJuly 1, 2009 at 5:24 PM

    The eternal debate on why North America became a world power while Latin America remained underdevelped! 

    Langley ... explains the different political outcomes in terms of the fact that in British North America in the 1770s, the“polit-ical arena ”was inhabited by ideologues who “debated inalienable rights” and “orators” who “expounded on the power of colonial assemblies” while on the eve ofthe wars of independence in Spanish America, the political terrain was still dominated by a “patrimo-nial state” connected in “a precise and comprehensibleway to the Crown.” Thus, when the Spanish monarchwas “forcibly removed from his seat of authority” in1808, “his Creole subjects were thrown into disarrayand confusion” and their initial “commitment as rev-olutionaries was an expression of political loyalty to the deposed monarchs and opposition to the usurper”(pp. 211-212).

    Kind of an ambitious undertaking.   I've heard he doesn't cover the Haitian case to the extent he does the other two.

    ReplyDelete
  64. vzaJuly 1, 2009 at 7:14 PM

    As just a quick observation about the eternal debate, I  would have to look at the political, economic, and social differences between Britain and Spain to begin with and then just think of the differences in how Britain and Spain administered their colonies in the Americas. British subjects in North America had many political and economic freedoms the Spanish subjects in Latin America simply did not have. The relative autonomy of the colonial assemblies and the fewer contraints on economic activiity in British America as examples. When Britain started leaning on the colonies for funds, there were established freedoms the colonists were determined to preserve. British America was just in a better position, politically, economically, and socially after its revolution.
    But even so, we cannot underestimate the impact of the great Washington and the Founding Dathers at an important turning point after the American Revolution. To borrow a phrase of Wellington's after Waterloo: "It was a close run thing."  The new country could have easily slipped into disorder and factional fighting, too.

    I look forward to reading the book. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  65. vzaJuly 1, 2009 at 7:16 PM

    As just a quick observation about the eternal debate, I  would have to look at the political, economic, and social differences between Britain and Spain to begin with and then just think of the differences in how Britain and Spain administered their colonies in the Americas. British subjects in North America had many political and economic freedoms the Spanish subjects in Latin America simply did not have. The relative autonomy of the colonial assemblies and the fewer constraints on economic activiity in British America as examples. When Britain started leaning on the colonies for funds, there were established freedoms the colonists were determined to preserve. British America was just in a better position, politically, economically, and socially after its revolution. 
    But even so, we cannot underestimate the impact of the great Washington and the Founding Fathers at an important turning point after the American Revolution. To borrow a phrase of Wellington's after Waterloo: "It was a close run thing."  The new country could have easily slipped into disorder and factional fighting, too. 
     
    I look forward to reading the book. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  66. vzaJuly 1, 2009 at 8:47 PM

    As just a quick observation about the eternal debate, I  would have to look at the political, economic, and social differences between Britain and Spain to begin with and then just think of the differences in how Britain and Spain administered their colonies in the Americas. British subjects in North America had many political and economic freedoms the Spanish subjects in Latin America simply did not have. The relative autonomy of the colonial assemblies and the fewer constraints on economic activiity in British America as examples. When Britain started leaning on the colonies for funds, there were established freedoms the colonists were determined to preserve. British America was just in a better position, politically, economically, and socially after its revolution.   
    But even so, we cannot underestimate the impact of the great Washington and the Founding Fathers at an important turning point after the American Revolution. I'll borrow something Wellington said after Waterloo: "It was a close run thing."  The new country could have easily slipped into disorder and factional fighting, too.   
       
    I look forward to reading the book. Thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  67. MaracatuJuly 2, 2009 at 3:47 AM

    I didn't use that particular book for any of my classes and actually haven't read it (although I must confess that for some odd reason, I was attracted to his whole "theory of chaos" approach).  Anyway, there is a good review of the book by Tony MacFarlane in the Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2 (May, 2000), pp. 551-553.

    ReplyDelete
  68. vJuly 4, 2009 at 1:18 AM

    "Zelaya attempted to give Hondurans the gift of participatory democracy. It was the coup leaders who violated the constitution. Those who say otherwise are wrong."

    WHY PRESIDENT ZELAYA'S ACTIONS IN HONDURAS WERE LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL

    http://rebelreports.com/post/133319827/why-president-zelayas-actions-in-honduras-were-legal

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)