What Nickname does Andrew Jackson Deserve?

Andrew Jackson was the 7th president of the United States, presiding from 1829-1837. Jackson has earned himself many different nicknames, ranging from “Old Hickory” to “King Mob”. His two most popular labels were “The People’s President” and “King Andrew”. One reason he was called “The People’s President” was because he was known for defending the United States, even before he was president, by serving as a general in the War of 1812. Also, Jackson won the popular vote against John Quincy Adams in the election of 1824. Although Jackson did not win the whole election, he won the peoples vote by a huge majority. Lastly, Jackson was known as the “People’s President” because in 1828 he expanded suffrage by giving white, common men the right to vote. Therefore the property requirement for voting was eliminated in most states, which made for a more democratic election.

On the other side of the spectrum, Jackson was known as “King Andrew” which shines light on his less humane side. One huge reason for this nickname is because in 1830 Jackson forced the Native Americans from their homes in the southeast of the United States all the way to  across the Mississippi River. Too add on to that, Jackson goes completely against the Constitution by refusing to uphold the Supreme Court’s decision to let the Indians stay put. Another reason Jackson was known as “King Andrew” is because he caused the United States to go in to a complete economic crisis when he vetoed the Bank of the United States charter. This was only because he favored local banks that threw support towards him, which to the people seemed like a “King” kinda thing to do.

After learning all the facts about President Jackson, I believe that the title of “King Andrew” fits him more appropriately than “The People’s President”. For me, Jackson’s few, but huge indiscretions over power his democratic legacies. Even as a president, Jackson still has to uphold to the constitution. The way he forced the Native Americans out of their own territories shows he is not suitable to protect the unalienable rights of every American. I also believe that how Jackson “rotated the office” just to reward his supporters and ensure his future presidency was a very monarch-like thing to do. Through out everything we have learned about Jackson, I saw him some how abusing his power. For example he is known to “promote western expansion” but throughout the process he harmed the Native Americans. For every one reason he was known as “People’s President’ I see five reasons why he is known as “King Andrew.”

US Response to Drug Wars in Mexico

The United States is dealing with many foreign policy issues currently. Among many issues are conflict in the Middle East, Russia’s intervention in Ukraine, and Iran nuclear talks. But there is one issue that is occurring much closer to the United States, and that is the drug wars in Mexico.

Our southern border country is going through complete turmoil, the drug trafficking organizations in Mexico are causing crime on both sides of the border. “Since 2006, more than 60,000 people have been killed in DTO-related violence, and more than 26,000 have gone missing.” Evelyn Krache Morris states in her article “Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels”. Those massive numbers demand attention from the United States Government, seeing that these two countries have important ties in economy and culture. “The two countries share a 1,933-mile border that 350 million people cross legally each year, making it the world’s busiest.” Morris states. Yet the United States gives about no attention to the turmoil going on in Mexico. Everybody knows that the United states does give an immense amount of attention to the border security between Mexico and the US. But Morris points out an important observation regarding the United States impact on the border control, she says “Yet the technology and money dedicated to enhancing security there have not been enough to thwart creative DTOs.” The US foreign policy is ignoring the chaos and tragedy going on in Mexico, when it is not only affecting the lives of people in Mexico but in our own great country.

One of the three lasting concepts of the Monroe Doctrine is “Non-Intervention, unless it affects us directly.” The United States “response” to the drug wars (which isn’t much of a response at all) is neglecting that concept of the Doctrine. Yes, the US is not holding an intervention in Mexico which follows the concept of non-intervention BUT it also is not addressing a threat that does indeed affect the US directly. Mexico is the United States’ second largest export market and its third largest import supplier. With Mexico’s economy struggling because of the drug wars, the United States’ economy will be directly affected in a negative way because of their relation with Mexico. If the US were following the three lasting concepts of the Monroe Doctrine they would do many things differently. First the US would not interfere by sending US law enforcement to only be killed and add to the amount of casualties, in order to follow the concept of Separate Spheres. Also the US would only help positively from a distance without dominating Mexico, which would follow the concept of Non-Colonization. But lastly and most importantly, the US should higher the security of the border to catch DTOs and diminish them from coming in to our country. This would follow the concept of Non-Intervention (unless it affects us directly), because the drug wars do affect the United States directly and the US should be holding an Intervention to higher the border control security.

The United States may use the concepts of the Monroe Doctrine for many other issues in foreign policy But their “let’s stay out of it” response to the drug wars in Mexico neglects the three lasting concepts of the Doctrine, because it is going to affect the US directly.

Krache Morris, Evelyn. "Think Again: Mexican Drug Cartels." Foreign Policy Think Again Mexican Drug Cartels Comments. Web. 5 Dec. 2014. <http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/12/04/think-again-mexican-drug-cartels/

Relating Race and Identity in Latin American Revolutions and Today

The Brazilian Revolution began in 1789, when elites under the captaincy of Minas Gerais revolted. They were protesting the imposition of new taxes and wanted imperial control reasserted. After Napoleon and his armies invaded Portugal and Spain in 1807 and 1808, the Spanish American colonies were left isolated from total control. In addition, King John IV arrives in Brazil as Portugal's prince regent after French troops invaded Lisbon in 1807. In 1815, John VI elevates Brazil to a "kingdom", five years later the Portuguese army heads into a revolution hoping to bring a constitutional monarchy. But, in 1821 John VI leaves Brazil, in fear of losing the crown, and leaves his son, Pedro, in charge. A year later, Pedro declares Brazil's independence, which was recognized by Portugal in 1825. Brazil is known as one of the few Latin American colonies to gain independence peacefully. Although race played a large role in most of the Latin American revolutions, it do not have much impact at all in Brazil's revolution. Identity did have a minor role in the revolution, it all began with the Minas Conspiracy which "involved prominent figures as well as military officers". Who people were according to social class had an impact on what they wanted for the country, in that instance the elites wanted imperial control and imposed the new taxes, and this all sparked Brazil's revolution.

In the United States we hear about a new issue that relates to race just about every day. The latest issue is the death of an unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, who was shot by a white police officer. This terrible incident occurred on August 9th 2014 in Ferguson Missouri, and sparked many different reactions from people all across America. The Washington Post’s article “Was Michael Brown surrendering or advancing to attack Officer Darren Wilson?” discusses the controversies regarding the shooting and what both Brown’s and Wilson’s intentions were. In the article, author, Kimbriell Kelley, writes “The question of whether Brown charged at Wilson was a key piece of the puzzle for the St. Louis County grand jury, which decided last week that it would not indict the officer in connection with the killing.” Americans are left to interpret this incident by themselves based on whatever information they hear in the news or wherever, so chaos is breaking out all throughout the United States. Kelley wrote “Most of the roughly two dozen witnesses who saw the fatal gunfire Aug. 9 told the grand jury they observed something that was both upsetting and bewildering to them — a wounded black man, his hands raised somehow, walking toward the white police officer who was shooting at him.” The death of Michael Brown has left America wondering whether race is clouding the judgement of law enforcement. I strongly believe that race continues to affect national identity and politics, and it’s a disgrace to our Constitution. The article  “Was Michael Brown surrendering or advancing to attack Officer Darren Wilson?” shed light on the unfair treatment towards people of race by the law enforcement, while also sorting out the logistics of the case. Race and identity should have absolutely no relation to our rights as a citizen of the United States and just as a human. Yet, in this day and age in the United States we still see reports of people being victimized because of their race or identity, when will it come to an end?

Kelley, Kimbriell. "Was Michael Brown Surrendering or Advancing to Attack Officer Darren Wilson?" Washington Post. The Washington Post. Web. 4 Dec. 2014. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2014/11/29/b99ef7a8-75d3-11e4-a755-e32227229e7b_story.html>.