How do Latin Americans feel about Simón Bolívar today? What is the consensus on him?

About being part of Spain? I'd say that's a really unpopular opinion. We value our independency over here. Bolivar died here and lived most of his live in Colombia and that makes Venezuelans fume

But I mean you said many in your country hate him. For what? What would the alternative be if it wasn't him helping make you independent?

Generally mixed bag depending where you live. He's still referred to and praised heavily in Venezuela as el libertador, there was a whole netflix series painting him in a good light (didn't see it myself, my mom did).
He fucked up latin america and left it open to manipulation from outside sources (US, UK). Chavistas also tried to combine his image alone with the cult of personality of Chavez by naming everything "bolivarian".

Personally don't like him as he was a freemason

0n no te banearon? Y Bolivar nacio en Caracas, no en Colombia. Antes que los chavistas lo exhumaron, estaba enterrado en la catedral de caracas.

You fucked up everything.

I didn't do shit

The average brazilian has no Idea who's Simon

he was born in caracas, but died in colombia

We'd eventually reached independence like every other country in the region. He killed a fuck ton of loyalists in Colombia during his independence revolution

He was complete scum, if anyone deserved to make the sudacas independent it was Francisco Miranda but sadly we jailed him lol
Also O'Higgins was useless and San Martin was a chad

*de Miranda I always get that wrong jaja

Why was he so scummy? What kinds of stuff did he do? I just know he was one of the big names of the liberation, I want to know more

Did people at the time want to be loyal to Spain? Was him fighting for independence seen as unpopular?

Talking to Bolivar.

His legacy haunts all the sister republics he unintentionally founded. I think it's a bad thing because he was really contemptuous of the people whose freedom he was supposedly trying to ensure and he inadvertently gave power to cr*Ollos who thought the same.

Why is Jose de San Martin seen as based as fuck but Simon Bolivar seen as a piece of shit?

No (well, poor people didn't care), and no

Hi Cosmo

Are they just mad he killed people then?

Francisco Miranda would have been a much better leader because he actually understood he was in a heavily Amerindian land and that whatever he made was ultimately going to belong to a new form of people (i.e. mestizos) and so proposed a form of government that reflected instead of trying to LARP as Napoleon on the American continent.

Bolivar betrayed de Miranda who was an absolute chad. He arrested him and gave him to us in exchange for a pardon for rising in arms against the king.
Bolivar also was a bit of an incel and had delusions of grandeur.

siempre me dicen esto cuando doy mi opinion pero de verdad que ni puta idea de quien es el cosmo ese

ese no soy yo 0n
este fue mi unico post en el hilo

An important faction in Colombia was Loyal to Spain. Even tough I would've longed for independence had I lived through that era, I don't agree with forcing others to accept independence when they didn't want it. I don't know about other irrelevant shitholes south of us tb.h

Very interesting. Thanks Colombiabro

They are mad because being a monarchist somehow became popular among incels
Because you have only spoken to retards, it's simple: Bolivar wanted something similar to what the US is today, San Martin wanted a bunch of small monarchies. analyzing it in hindsight it's clear what option was the best.

Interesting, though I wonder what would happen if there was a greater South American state formed, sort of like an EU of SA.

Too many cr*Ollos trying to build fiefdoms of mestizo serfs and black or ameridian psuedo-slaves for that to happen.

>Greater South American state
it would never work. Brazil also would never join in

Independence was forced on us, there was no movement strong enough in any country to support it, and he was very unpopular in his day. His reputation was made posthumously as an act of "mythmaking".

I wasn't thaught much about him in school but from what I have read seems like a based retard

instead of a bunch of agrarian oligarchic feudal backwaters with no intention of industrializing, we'd have one giant backwater

ya sabemos que te duele que san martin tuviera que liberar tu pais porque los chilenos erais inutiles

depends on the country, for example the mexicans still offered the king of spain the crown of mexico despite wanting to be independent

because bolivar was scum while san martin wasn't

Well, people here compare him to our present-day local based retard, so you might be onto something

So you (meaning Guatemalans at the time) would have preferred to stay loyal to Spain?

Criollo owned fiefdoms is the bones of our continent. It is what we truly are, conservative or left wing or whatever, it always returns to that somehow.

>bones
More like a cage keeping the people small and emaciated in its confines.

Yes. Mexico literally begged every monarch in europe to take over for the king of spain, and when they all said no, they formed their own empire 1821 (which we promptly joined as we felt the same). Independence as the USA knew it was never popular here, the crown was unironically popular in almost all of latam, because it was almost the only real cohesion between the colonies.

Ah okay, got it. Thanks Guatemalabro

I've never understood the Chavista obsession with him. I saw the Chavez produced El Libertador film, it's a standard shitty historical epic, but one thing that stood out to me was the fact that in his speeches he would dredge up Spain's destruction of native societies and civilizations and talk about what "they" (the Spaniards) did to "us" (the Natives. This is unironcially a pure blood white Criollo, a slave owner, descended from Spanish aristocrats and encomendados, born on a fucking hacienda, saying this, it's fucking surreal. I have no idea whether it's based in his actual views though, I do remember though that the film also overplays the role of his nanny Hipolita, a black lady who's supposed to be his mother figure in the film. The film doesn't mention that irl she was a fucking slave.

Np!

Well Bolivar did unironically think highly of Hipolita. In his memoirs he ascribes to her the role of both mother and father to him.

Absolutely based

Was there a libertador that was actually good?

That's fair enough. Still, the fact that they neglect to mention that she's a slave is odd to me. Maybe it's implicit giving that she's a black nanny but I don't know.

>I've never understood the Chavista obsession with him
All socialist governments promote nationalistic propaganda like that. In venezuela they call it "Bolivarianismo". Bolivar was not criollo, one/some of his ancestor(s) were mestizo or mulatto iirc

The most based yet tragic latam figure. Expected too much from latam and pissed everyone off by the end

Expecting brown beaner scum to come together to achieve something big was a mistake

Chavez essentially tried to use Bolivar's image to try to promote amerindian/mestizo unity or something or other. When I used to live in Caracas, the shanties around the city were filled with the mulattos/amerindians/cholos at the time who would come down and work for regular people.

Bolivar himself wasn't amerindian but of basque descent (judging off his surname but possible mestizo ancestry) but of course Chavez's supporters tried to paint him in a light that's more mixed leaning towards amerindian. He also replaced "dia de la hispanidad" with dia de la resistencia amerindia" (day of amerindian resistance). Only reason his image is used is to promote nationalistic cohesion, I think Pedro Camejo is another one used, though he's used to promote unity with black venezuelans (coastal).

>black nanny
Can only speak on personal anecdotes but a lot of them, but a few of my family members have employed them as nannies and cooks. My dad had one as a kid, and as did I + my cousins. I doubt she played much of a role in his life though.

Sus familiares fueron descendientes de vascos y seguro unos mestizos pero dudo que era mulatto.

Attached: IMG-20200229-WA0001 - Copy.jpg (1024x662, 76.93K)

>The most based yet tragic latam figure
Again, that's Francisco de Miranda.

*ahem* why yes I liberated the most based countries in Latin America

Attached: San_Martín_por_Castro_2.jpg (445x592, 95.64K)

How common are blacks in latam? Not counting Huezillians, of course

Isn't he the black dad of Latin American liberators? Went in, became president for a bit then fucked off, at least thats what I remember about him

blacks here are like 10% of the population. They're also all over the Caribbean. In Cuba, DR, Panama, Venezuela, Puerto Rico and Colombia a good chunk of the population have visible African ancestry

Anyone who actually knows about history in this shithole hates him, the faggot from the north and the faggot from the south just forced independence on us, we didnt want to be independent, they just independent us because they were scared about spain wanting to reconquered them. Before independence we were rich as fuck, and in those times 80 percent of the population didn't want to be independent

Depends on the country. It can vary essentially the closer you go to the Caribbean the higher the population. Chile has a sizable congolombian and haitian population as it's fairly well off/stable at the moment. The "blackest" latin america country would probably be Dominican Republic and then Cuba or Puerto Rico.

Peru es lo que es y lo que siempre ha sido, no te excuses en un personaje que murió hace 200 años

He was in Peru and was president for a while but then had a meeting with Bolivar and resigned.
He fucked off to France because the politics after independence (and during most of the XIX century) in Argentina were very, and I mean very, autistic and they didn't let him come back.

Argentina and Chile? Bolivar liberated 6 countries.