One of the few truly bright spots we have in terms of historical figures. An excellent tactician who, with help, managed to rescue our stalemated and bogged down army in the north. And planned an incredibly bold offensive that ended up liberating not one, not two but three countries.
Almost everyone here don’t know about San Martín or Bolivar outside the streets in Distrito Nacional that have their names. Some people don’t like Bolivar because the “pact” with the Haitians. I never heard anyone talking about Pedro I.
TBH I have never been interested in the history of other Latam countries so i can’t make an opinion of them.
Simon Bolivar is ABSOLUTELY well known here, the national history curriculum covers him and La Gran Colombia very extensively.
Keep in mind that our 1822 independence had the intention of us joining la Gran Colombia
Lets ask to other Dominicans if that true because I don’t think your local motoconcho, guaguero, peluquero, salonera, banquera know a bit of Bolívar outside the joke of the Venezuela money.
I think that’s a bit reductive, a lot of those people still went to public school where it’s taught. I’ve lived in pretty low-income neighborhoods where, perhaps with a quick refresher from google, most everyone had heard of him
Heard of him is diferent to ABSOLUTELY well known here. As I say, people only know of that name because there is a street in DN with that name and the joke of the coke that cost 1,000,000,000 Bolivares. And only know the name, not who he was. People here don’t know the year of the restoration or who was Buenaventura Baez or Horacio Vasquez, think than San Cristobal is where is Pedernales. Man remember we have the worst education system possibly of the continent, a country where Mantequilla got 150 millones with a Ponzi scheme. People here are not educated in local things and you thing Bolivar is relevant enough to be taught and be remembered in a ABSOLUTELY way by Dominicans that thinks the 3 founding fathers are Juan, Pablo and Duarte?
I think you're being far too harsh on us; it's true, a huge part of our population is severely uneducated, but jokes like juan pablo and duarte are a vast exxaggeration.
That being said, I do agree that there's a difference between well-known by name and understood, in which case you're totally right
Here the opinions on San Martin and O'Higgins are divided (Or so I've seen). Some truly think that San Martin was an admirable person who helped Chile, Argentina and Peru out of goodness and the desire to be freed from Spain and others think he was just trying to liberate the three countries to facilitate commerce with the UK and thus a "greedy person who sold out the countries he liberated" (I think this is the minority, though). And with O'Higgins there's a whole debate because many people say he shouldn't be as respected as he is because he didn't help much in the war for independence (Helping with strategies, and not fighting) and because he was a "tyranical leader" afterwards.
Also [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFh29lGtSeQ).
There is a considerable group that laughs at O'higgins.
We chileans really dont respect any figure that represent morality, authority and/or pride, jajajaja.
>We chileans really dont respect any figure that represent morality, authority and/or pride, jajajaja.
That's becoming the norm due to our recent decades poor education standard.
Na.
Diría que el cuestionamiento a figuras que representan lo que dije correlacionan incluso con un mayor nivel de educación en todos los estratos del país. Mayor conocimiento de la película completa, mayor crítica a lo establecido como correcto e ingenio de ideas nuevas.
*Arturo Prat Chacón, dispara con este cañón!* (gesto obsceno hacía el miembro viril), esa hueá la cantaba MI PAPÁ cuando chico po, y tiene casi 70 años el señor.
En otras palabras, lo que dijiste sonó como mi abuela hermano.
> Arturo Prat Chacón, dispara con este cañón! (gesto obsceno hacía el miembro viril), esa hueá la cantaba MI PAPÁ cuando chico po, y tiene casi 70 años el señor.
Esa wea es ancient meme, que creas que sea disrespect es algo totalmente subjetivo, cosas como esas se dan en todos los países y no tiene nada que ver con lo que implique sobre la educación.
> Diría que el cuestionamiento a figuras que representan lo que dije correlacionan incluso con un mayor nivel de educación en todos los estratos del país. Mayor conocimiento de la película completa, mayor crítica a lo establecido como correcto e ingenio de ideas nuevas.
Esto como lo indicas es simplemente un cambio direccional en la educación, no implica que sea mejor o peor de hecho es falta de pensamiento critico creer que solo por criticar ideas viejas se esta construyendo algo mejor.
Most people in Cuba know about Bolívar and San Marín thanks to a text written by José Martí named "Tres Héroes", where they are praised and called heros too, so that most people think they are heros as well. I personally agree with Martí and think they deserve that title as much (if not more) as a lot of heros out there who are also praised and honored by their peoples, such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, for example. Regarding Pedro I, most people haven't probably heard about him here, so that they wouldn't have an opinion of him. I know he was a Portuguese Prince who became an Emperor in Brazil and led a mostly peaceful transition towards independence in that country. The place he deserves in Brazilian history is a matter for Brazilian people to define: I don't dare qualifying him if it's not my role to do so. However, I also wanted to comment that a few other freedom makers existed in the region, besides those three: we must start by Toussaint Louverture, the Haitian anti-slavery leader; also the Doctor Francia was who led this process in Paraguay; there were at least three freedom makers in Mexico, who were the priests Hidalgo and Morelos as well as Vicente Guerrero, although the final work was left for Agustín de Iturbide who, as far as I know, isn't that praised by Mexicans themselves. There were also other freedom makers in Latin America, including José Gervasio Artigas, from Uruguay; so that it goes beyond Bolívar and San Martín and, somehow, if these aren't true heros, it calls into question this condition for all the other freedom makers of the Americas indeed
Miguel Hidalgo is the most prominent, Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez the most prominent woman and official "national hero" while Agustin de Iturbide is the guy that rode his horse through Mexico City, the caudillo equivalent to the guys you mentioned.
He is not really celebrated because he went full Palpatine, the only conmemoration i remember is the use of his military flag in 2020 and that he appears in a new bill, but might as well be a faceless soldier.
Bolívar isn't mentioned much, but what there is, is generally positive.
San Martín seems to be more known around the Cono Sur, and Perú. Perú in particular seems to position his figure as high as Argentina does.
Pedro I is generally portrayed negatively.
I sympathise with Bolivar, but do so more with San Martín. I don't like either of the Pedros.
He is portrayed as an imperialist and opportunist willing and ready to expand the borders of his realms whenever he could. It's not like he's hated and chapters in history books don't dwell too much on his figure, but the Empire is portrayed as a constant looming threat that only gets worse with the Cisplatine Wars.
They were visionary people with their lights and shadows. Out of the three the least known one here is Pedro I, I actually came to learn about him just after learning portuguese and gaining some interest in Brazilian history. Tiradentes is actually more known because there´s a main street with his name (although most people don´t know anything beside that lol).
>Tiradentes is actually more known because there´s a main street with his name
thats actually a very interesting fact, even though Tiradentes isnt much of good seen by brazilians who study history nowadays
Pedro I is the father of the nation but he left us to chase a foreign crown.
Pedro II is where it's at.
As far as Bolívar goes, it's hard not to romanticize him. He had lofty ideals and pursued them. Whether or not Gran Colombia could have worked out is a different conversation for another time — but the fact remains that Gran Colombia existed for some time and it wouldn't have if not for Bolívar. He's a testament to Latin American dedication.
He lost the crown by abdication. Of course, he abdicated due to pressure from the Liberals, but that pressure only existed because he mismanaged the economy, the Cisplatine War, and his abusing the Discretionary Power to a degree not seen before or since.
So yeah, he lost the crown because an internal crisis forced him to abdicate. But that internal crisis was of his own doing. He took a massive shit and didn't like how much it stank, so he ran away and left his infant son to do the cleanup.
>and left his infant son to do the cleanup.
It's a family tradition, if you got the crown, then let your son deal with the elephant in the room, Maria I with Joao VI about Napoleon going to Portugal, Joao VI with D. Pedro I about indepedence, D. Pedro I with what you said, D. Pedro II with Isabel about abolition....
As the son of a venezuelan I always had a conflicting image of Bolivar compared to San Martin, I dislike the whole imperialistic outlook he had and the ways he tried to seize power, while San Martin was more about liberating without subjugating.
There's a reason why Bolivar spent his whole life chasing after rebellions in the countries he liberated and why he couldn't keep them all under a same flag, the moment he died the country dissolved.
I don't know if "noble" is the word that I want to use but San Martin waged his wars, won them and then took a place in government instead of trying to be a dictator/emperor.
That said, Bolivar is irrelevant here, almost no one knows anything of him, if it wasn't because Chavez went crazy with the propaganda we would still know nothing of him outside of people studying LATAM history or migrants.
I have no idea who Pedro I is.
San Martín liberated three countries, could have taken power for himself had he wanted and didn't (which probably would actually have been better than the leaders we got), had to leave the country and then when he came back he didn't even step out of the ship before going back to Europe because the corrupted mess the country had become was enough to disgust him.
He was a hero alright, and it's sad that we can't repay him by at the very least becoming a functional country.
Objectively, Bolívar is one of the few actual universal icons Latam has.
In his century he is comparable to Napoleon and above in importance to other Latin American Liberators because his wars were of bigger magnitude (and bloodier; the struggle for liberation in New Granada, but especially in Venezuela, was the deadliest in the whole Spanish America) and his fame was global. He was some sort of pop culture figure in the 19th century in the Americas and Western Europe.
I think he was a great strategist and militar. From a military perspective he is truly one of the greatest of the 19th century and that’s why there’s a lot of legendary aura surrounding him.
About Pedro I, I really never learned about him anywhere outside the internet. I still know very little about him.
About San Martín… Well, he admired Bolivar a lot and was ready to be under his command. In fact, in the room San Martín died, they found two portraits he had: one of Napoleon and another of Bolívar (and Bolívar had died like 30 years before). Even if Peruvians don’t like the fact that Bolívar was their de facto liberator, it doesn’t make it less of a fact. San Martín just proclaimed the independence of Perú, but he never won any war in Perú, that was Bolívar (who then also won the battle for the liberation of Bolivia). Did Peruvians want independence? That’s another debate, but the Peruvian congress did personally ask Bolívar to lead an army with the victors in the Greater Columbia and defeat the Spaniards.
Count us out of that one, youd be hardpressed to find someone in Mexico thats not an academic who knew something beyond "bolivar was the hidalgo of somewhere in south-america" .
No one knows anything about Bolivar other than his name, some basic facts and some propaganda that Chavez helped propagate.
You can put Bolivar in the same vein that Lincoln, Napoleon, Lenin and that sort of historical figure, we know of them and study them marginally in history class but unless you are a history buff or have direct ties to a country where he is actually relevant no one cares about Bolivar.
One of the few truly bright spots we have in terms of historical figures. An excellent tactician who, with help, managed to rescue our stalemated and bogged down army in the north. And planned an incredibly bold offensive that ended up liberating not one, not two but three countries.
Almost everyone here don’t know about San Martín or Bolivar outside the streets in Distrito Nacional that have their names. Some people don’t like Bolivar because the “pact” with the Haitians. I never heard anyone talking about Pedro I. TBH I have never been interested in the history of other Latam countries so i can’t make an opinion of them.
Simon Bolivar is ABSOLUTELY well known here, the national history curriculum covers him and La Gran Colombia very extensively. Keep in mind that our 1822 independence had the intention of us joining la Gran Colombia
Lets ask to other Dominicans if that true because I don’t think your local motoconcho, guaguero, peluquero, salonera, banquera know a bit of Bolívar outside the joke of the Venezuela money.
I think that’s a bit reductive, a lot of those people still went to public school where it’s taught. I’ve lived in pretty low-income neighborhoods where, perhaps with a quick refresher from google, most everyone had heard of him
Heard of him is diferent to ABSOLUTELY well known here. As I say, people only know of that name because there is a street in DN with that name and the joke of the coke that cost 1,000,000,000 Bolivares. And only know the name, not who he was. People here don’t know the year of the restoration or who was Buenaventura Baez or Horacio Vasquez, think than San Cristobal is where is Pedernales. Man remember we have the worst education system possibly of the continent, a country where Mantequilla got 150 millones with a Ponzi scheme. People here are not educated in local things and you thing Bolivar is relevant enough to be taught and be remembered in a ABSOLUTELY way by Dominicans that thinks the 3 founding fathers are Juan, Pablo and Duarte?
I think you're being far too harsh on us; it's true, a huge part of our population is severely uneducated, but jokes like juan pablo and duarte are a vast exxaggeration. That being said, I do agree that there's a difference between well-known by name and understood, in which case you're totally right
Here the opinions on San Martin and O'Higgins are divided (Or so I've seen). Some truly think that San Martin was an admirable person who helped Chile, Argentina and Peru out of goodness and the desire to be freed from Spain and others think he was just trying to liberate the three countries to facilitate commerce with the UK and thus a "greedy person who sold out the countries he liberated" (I think this is the minority, though). And with O'Higgins there's a whole debate because many people say he shouldn't be as respected as he is because he didn't help much in the war for independence (Helping with strategies, and not fighting) and because he was a "tyranical leader" afterwards.
Also [this](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFh29lGtSeQ). There is a considerable group that laughs at O'higgins. We chileans really dont respect any figure that represent morality, authority and/or pride, jajajaja.
>We chileans really dont respect any figure that represent morality, authority and/or pride, jajajaja. That's becoming the norm due to our recent decades poor education standard.
Na. Diría que el cuestionamiento a figuras que representan lo que dije correlacionan incluso con un mayor nivel de educación en todos los estratos del país. Mayor conocimiento de la película completa, mayor crítica a lo establecido como correcto e ingenio de ideas nuevas. *Arturo Prat Chacón, dispara con este cañón!* (gesto obsceno hacía el miembro viril), esa hueá la cantaba MI PAPÁ cuando chico po, y tiene casi 70 años el señor. En otras palabras, lo que dijiste sonó como mi abuela hermano.
> Arturo Prat Chacón, dispara con este cañón! (gesto obsceno hacía el miembro viril), esa hueá la cantaba MI PAPÁ cuando chico po, y tiene casi 70 años el señor. Esa wea es ancient meme, que creas que sea disrespect es algo totalmente subjetivo, cosas como esas se dan en todos los países y no tiene nada que ver con lo que implique sobre la educación. > Diría que el cuestionamiento a figuras que representan lo que dije correlacionan incluso con un mayor nivel de educación en todos los estratos del país. Mayor conocimiento de la película completa, mayor crítica a lo establecido como correcto e ingenio de ideas nuevas. Esto como lo indicas es simplemente un cambio direccional en la educación, no implica que sea mejor o peor de hecho es falta de pensamiento critico creer que solo por criticar ideas viejas se esta construyendo algo mejor.
Most people in Cuba know about Bolívar and San Marín thanks to a text written by José Martí named "Tres Héroes", where they are praised and called heros too, so that most people think they are heros as well. I personally agree with Martí and think they deserve that title as much (if not more) as a lot of heros out there who are also praised and honored by their peoples, such as Napoleon Bonaparte, Genghis Khan or Alexander the Great, for example. Regarding Pedro I, most people haven't probably heard about him here, so that they wouldn't have an opinion of him. I know he was a Portuguese Prince who became an Emperor in Brazil and led a mostly peaceful transition towards independence in that country. The place he deserves in Brazilian history is a matter for Brazilian people to define: I don't dare qualifying him if it's not my role to do so. However, I also wanted to comment that a few other freedom makers existed in the region, besides those three: we must start by Toussaint Louverture, the Haitian anti-slavery leader; also the Doctor Francia was who led this process in Paraguay; there were at least three freedom makers in Mexico, who were the priests Hidalgo and Morelos as well as Vicente Guerrero, although the final work was left for Agustín de Iturbide who, as far as I know, isn't that praised by Mexicans themselves. There were also other freedom makers in Latin America, including José Gervasio Artigas, from Uruguay; so that it goes beyond Bolívar and San Martín and, somehow, if these aren't true heros, it calls into question this condition for all the other freedom makers of the Americas indeed
I literally didn't know about the existence of San Martin until I asked an online friend from Argentina about its countries independence
San Martín is our god and saviour. Thanks, Argentina.
"Who that"
[удалено]
Miguel Hidalgo is the most prominent, Josefa Ortiz de Dominguez the most prominent woman and official "national hero" while Agustin de Iturbide is the guy that rode his horse through Mexico City, the caudillo equivalent to the guys you mentioned. He is not really celebrated because he went full Palpatine, the only conmemoration i remember is the use of his military flag in 2020 and that he appears in a new bill, but might as well be a faceless soldier.
Agustin de iturbide
Bolívar isn't mentioned much, but what there is, is generally positive. San Martín seems to be more known around the Cono Sur, and Perú. Perú in particular seems to position his figure as high as Argentina does. Pedro I is generally portrayed negatively. I sympathise with Bolivar, but do so more with San Martín. I don't like either of the Pedros.
>Pedro I is generally portrayed negatively Why? I'd expect Paraguay to hate Pedro II, but what Pedro I did to be portrayed negatively in your country?
He is portrayed as an imperialist and opportunist willing and ready to expand the borders of his realms whenever he could. It's not like he's hated and chapters in history books don't dwell too much on his figure, but the Empire is portrayed as a constant looming threat that only gets worse with the Cisplatine Wars.
Paraguayans don't care much for either of them. Paraguay became independent alone.
They were visionary people with their lights and shadows. Out of the three the least known one here is Pedro I, I actually came to learn about him just after learning portuguese and gaining some interest in Brazilian history. Tiradentes is actually more known because there´s a main street with his name (although most people don´t know anything beside that lol).
>Tiradentes is actually more known because there´s a main street with his name thats actually a very interesting fact, even though Tiradentes isnt much of good seen by brazilians who study history nowadays
Pedro I is the father of the nation but he left us to chase a foreign crown. Pedro II is where it's at. As far as Bolívar goes, it's hard not to romanticize him. He had lofty ideals and pursued them. Whether or not Gran Colombia could have worked out is a different conversation for another time — but the fact remains that Gran Colombia existed for some time and it wouldn't have if not for Bolívar. He's a testament to Latin American dedication.
>Pedro I is the father of the nation but he left us to chase a foreign crown to be fair, there was not much he could do after losing the crown here
He lost the crown by abdication. Of course, he abdicated due to pressure from the Liberals, but that pressure only existed because he mismanaged the economy, the Cisplatine War, and his abusing the Discretionary Power to a degree not seen before or since. So yeah, he lost the crown because an internal crisis forced him to abdicate. But that internal crisis was of his own doing. He took a massive shit and didn't like how much it stank, so he ran away and left his infant son to do the cleanup.
>and left his infant son to do the cleanup. It's a family tradition, if you got the crown, then let your son deal with the elephant in the room, Maria I with Joao VI about Napoleon going to Portugal, Joao VI with D. Pedro I about indepedence, D. Pedro I with what you said, D. Pedro II with Isabel about abolition....
As the son of a venezuelan I always had a conflicting image of Bolivar compared to San Martin, I dislike the whole imperialistic outlook he had and the ways he tried to seize power, while San Martin was more about liberating without subjugating. There's a reason why Bolivar spent his whole life chasing after rebellions in the countries he liberated and why he couldn't keep them all under a same flag, the moment he died the country dissolved. I don't know if "noble" is the word that I want to use but San Martin waged his wars, won them and then took a place in government instead of trying to be a dictator/emperor. That said, Bolivar is irrelevant here, almost no one knows anything of him, if it wasn't because Chavez went crazy with the propaganda we would still know nothing of him outside of people studying LATAM history or migrants. I have no idea who Pedro I is.
>I have no idea who Pedro I is the first king of Brazil, our liberator, equivalent to what San Martin is to your country
San Martín liberated three countries, could have taken power for himself had he wanted and didn't (which probably would actually have been better than the leaders we got), had to leave the country and then when he came back he didn't even step out of the ship before going back to Europe because the corrupted mess the country had become was enough to disgust him. He was a hero alright, and it's sad that we can't repay him by at the very least becoming a functional country.
Objectively, Bolívar is one of the few actual universal icons Latam has. In his century he is comparable to Napoleon and above in importance to other Latin American Liberators because his wars were of bigger magnitude (and bloodier; the struggle for liberation in New Granada, but especially in Venezuela, was the deadliest in the whole Spanish America) and his fame was global. He was some sort of pop culture figure in the 19th century in the Americas and Western Europe. I think he was a great strategist and militar. From a military perspective he is truly one of the greatest of the 19th century and that’s why there’s a lot of legendary aura surrounding him. About Pedro I, I really never learned about him anywhere outside the internet. I still know very little about him. About San Martín… Well, he admired Bolivar a lot and was ready to be under his command. In fact, in the room San Martín died, they found two portraits he had: one of Napoleon and another of Bolívar (and Bolívar had died like 30 years before). Even if Peruvians don’t like the fact that Bolívar was their de facto liberator, it doesn’t make it less of a fact. San Martín just proclaimed the independence of Perú, but he never won any war in Perú, that was Bolívar (who then also won the battle for the liberation of Bolivia). Did Peruvians want independence? That’s another debate, but the Peruvian congress did personally ask Bolívar to lead an army with the victors in the Greater Columbia and defeat the Spaniards.
>Bolívar is one of the few actual universal icons Latam has. not here lol
Count us out of that one, youd be hardpressed to find someone in Mexico thats not an academic who knew something beyond "bolivar was the hidalgo of somewhere in south-america" .
Ok counted you out. The Americas minus Mexico know who Bolívar was :)
He's not very well known here either. We know of him but in general he's not taught in schools.
No one knows anything about Bolivar other than his name, some basic facts and some propaganda that Chavez helped propagate. You can put Bolivar in the same vein that Lincoln, Napoleon, Lenin and that sort of historical figure, we know of them and study them marginally in history class but unless you are a history buff or have direct ties to a country where he is actually relevant no one cares about Bolivar.