The American continents have always been a battleground of principles; a realm in which colonialism, nationalism, and radicalism come together, through peace and war, to create bold new ideas which would forever change the historical relevance and climate of the region. In the early to mid 1800s, Spanish America was in the midst of revolutionary turmoil, spearheaded by political chaos, and the constant shift of ideological power. Such an environment tends to be a breeding ground for larger than life personalities, with the setting being volatile enough for these characters to be placed center stage. Latin America was no exception. In the north came the many reigns of Antonio López de Santa Anna, a charismatic yet inept leader who infamously
…show more content…
In Santa Anna’s memoirs, he recalls multiple uprisings and changes in power, such as Bustamante’s failures and Paredes’ rebellion. Although written as a neutral viewpoint, it is apparent that Santa Anna has built his career on taking advantage of such opportunities, and justifying his actions by claiming to “sacrifice [himself] to the public good”1. This is evident by the fact that while Santa Anna was in and around positions of power, chaos still ensued in Mexico, with constant revolts and a perpetual state of distress, pointing to poor leadership and decision making, and thus the conclusion that he was never elected based on his skills, but for his charismatic, bold personality. Santa Anna’s memoirs paint the picture of a hero, answering the call of duty for his country, but, by examining the context and biases of his writings, it is apparent that he more resembles an opportunist who may have had his own interests at highest …show more content…
History is often shaped by those who wish to stand up and make a change, with America being no different. Antonio López de Santa Anna and Simón Bolívar were two uniquely driven individuals, who, despite having differing visions and journeys to power, greatly impacted and essentially created the Central and South America of the modern day. It simply goes to show that history bears no bias between the morally correct and the morally
In Santa Anna’s memoirs, he recalls multiple uprisings and changes in power, such as Bustamante’s failures and Paredes’ rebellion. Although written as a neutral viewpoint, it is apparent that Santa Anna has built his career on taking advantage of such opportunities, and justifying his actions by claiming to “sacrifice [himself] to the public good”1. This is evident by the fact that while Santa Anna was in and around positions of power, chaos still ensued in Mexico, with constant revolts and a perpetual state of distress, pointing to poor leadership and decision making, and thus the conclusion that he was never elected based on his skills, but for his charismatic, bold personality. Santa Anna’s memoirs paint the picture of a hero, answering the call of duty for his country, but, by examining the context and biases of his writings, it is apparent that he more resembles an opportunist who may have had his own interests at highest …show more content…
History is often shaped by those who wish to stand up and make a change, with America being no different. Antonio López de Santa Anna and Simón Bolívar were two uniquely driven individuals, who, despite having differing visions and journeys to power, greatly impacted and essentially created the Central and South America of the modern day. It simply goes to show that history bears no bias between the morally correct and the morally