The identity of individuals in post-European-colonization Latin America is simultaneous fragile and dynamic. Previously clear ethno-racial lines and national allegiances began to blend in the nineteenth century, contributing greatly to an increasingly poignant dilemma in selfhood. The lives of two prominent Latin American revolutionists, Simo ́n Boli ́var and Jose de San Marti ́n, uniquely demonstrated the dichotomous nature of having both European and Latin American connections of a political and nationalist nature. Boli ́var’s “Message to the Congress of Angostura” specifically addresses role of identity in the forging of a new, independent nation in the north. Historical overviews of San Marti ́n’s life and motivation to form an alliance
…show more content…
He begins the address by presenting the concept that “We are not Europeans; we are not Indians; we are but a mixed species of aborigines and Spaniards” (Boli ́var). He appeals to the idea of a modern state of equality by claiming that “slavery is the daughter of darkness: an ignorant people is a blind instrument of its own destruction” (Boli ́var). After setting the stage for his argument of forging a new, independent state, Boli ́var outlines a form of government that is neither a monarchy nor a democracy, employing elements of both British and American government. He describes a hereditary senate as one that “serve[s] as a counterweight to both government and people; and as a neutral power it will weaken the mutual attacks of these two eternally rival powers” (Boli ́var). This description of government appealed to both royalists and liberalists, bolstering Boli ́var’s move for a new nation. Racial divisions were no longer clear after years of colonization and the political climate was increasingly driven by the dichotomy of a people “struggling to maintain [themselves] in the country that gave [them] birth against the opposition of the invaders” (Boli ́var). His effort to truly embrace the blend of culture, race and ethnicity in order to gain independence proved to be a common
He begins the address by presenting the concept that “We are not Europeans; we are not Indians; we are but a mixed species of aborigines and Spaniards” (Boli ́var). He appeals to the idea of a modern state of equality by claiming that “slavery is the daughter of darkness: an ignorant people is a blind instrument of its own destruction” (Boli ́var). After setting the stage for his argument of forging a new, independent state, Boli ́var outlines a form of government that is neither a monarchy nor a democracy, employing elements of both British and American government. He describes a hereditary senate as one that “serve[s] as a counterweight to both government and people; and as a neutral power it will weaken the mutual attacks of these two eternally rival powers” (Boli ́var). This description of government appealed to both royalists and liberalists, bolstering Boli ́var’s move for a new nation. Racial divisions were no longer clear after years of colonization and the political climate was increasingly driven by the dichotomy of a people “struggling to maintain [themselves] in the country that gave [them] birth against the opposition of the invaders” (Boli ́var). His effort to truly embrace the blend of culture, race and ethnicity in order to gain independence proved to be a common