Race and Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

                In April of 1810 a young officer in Caracas named Simón Bolívar joins the Juntas and right away expels the Spanish governor of the province of Venezuela. A year later, a National Assembly in Caracas declared Venezuela's independence which was later reversed when Spanish authorities regained control of the province. This was the first reverse of the many in the Latin American Revolution. Over two years time Bolívar proved himself worthy of support in Venezuela of 1813. After, Bolívar went to Caracas and was known as the Liberator and had political control with dictatorial powers. His power did not last long and the Spanish gain control again. Bolívar went back to Venezuela and started building a new army. In 1819 Bolívar and his 2500 men traveled through the Orinoco and over the Andes mountains. This surprise attack on Bogotá caused the Spanish army to surrender and the proclamation of the Republica de Colombia. Eventually the Republica de Colombia became a real free public after Bolívar wins a battle in Ecuador. Bolívar remained ruler until 1830 when he resigned. After he died, both Ecuador and Venezuela secede formally from Gran Colombia. Throughout the revolution Bolívar was trying to unite everyone no matter what their race was. He wanted everyone to unite based on their identity which is important to know about this revolution. These people were all very different and had extremely different backgrounds and cultures. The one thing that brought people together in Latin America during the revolution and the one thing all of these people had in common was that none of them were European.

Minnesota schools have made national news with their new disciplinary policy where minority students of color receive special review before being suspended from school according to an article dated November 24, 2014 by Bernadeia Johnson, “Critics Say My New Discipline Policy is Unfair to White Students.  Here’s Why They’re Wrong”.  The policy was made in order to decrease the disparity in school suspensions between white students and students of color because students of color have a higher suspension rate.  According to Johnson, “if students are not in school they can’t learn.”   The policy is not only aimed at decreasing disparity in suspensions but also in closing the achievement gap between white students and students of color.  In my opinion this article is identifying black students with bad behavior and bad grades and only reinforcing racial bias in our society.  However if the policy helps minority students of color follow school rules and perform better academically then the policy will be seen as a positive means in addressing racial inequality.  Only time will tell.  So far, suspensions have dropped 50 % in one year.  This article reflects that inequality in education of minorities in our country still exists in our public school systems and it is not only a problem in Minnesota.  It can be seen in public schools across America.  Society needs to make efforts to correct inequality in education which Minnesota schools are trying to do with their new disciplinary policy.

"Critics Say My New Discipline Policy Is Unfair to White Students. Here’s Why They’re Wrong." Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 3 Dec. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/11/26/critics-say-my-new-discipline-policy-is-unfair-to-white-students-heres-why-theyre-wrong/>.