I don’t know where he got this information from but it’s all true because I studied some of these things before finding this video and I even learned more Today thanks for the video today I learned more about my country.
Great video! An update should be made. The wife of deposed President Zelaya is now President of Honduras. Former President Hernandez is now in prison in the US for Drug Traffic.
Buen video, gracias. Podria recomendarme bibliografia para saber más de la historia politica de honduras y el origen de las problematicas sociales actuales?
3 роки тому+2
Tengo varios libros en inglés que puedo enviarte. En español, desafortunadamente no. Pero hay disponibles en la biblioteca virtual de la UNAM completamente gratis. Dime que es lo que prefieres y te mando alguno.
I produced the whole history of economic development of the country since independence. What's interesting is that the agrerian reforms of the 1970s-80s is what dissuade the country from developing notions of revolutions as it happened in many Latin America states.
I was liking this until we got to the part about the US's attitude toward the coup. First, however: Although Zelaya may have been interested in permitting re-elections one day, that is not what the referendum was about (the referendum was about forming a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution). As for the US's response to the coup: Of course Obama and Hillary expressed dismay that laws were broken, but Micheletti met with US officials the night before the coup. Then, when Zelaya was forced onto a plane and flown out of the country, the plane refueled at a US military base first. The Obama administration didn't demand that Zelaya be reinstated, and didn't officially declare it a coup, which would have cut off Honduras from aid. (REMEMBER: The US has one of its largest military bases in Honduras---the largest in Latin America.) Hillary Clinton even said: "We do think that this has evolved into a coup." The deal mentioned here that would've allowed Zelaya to serve the final few months of his term included basically disempowering him to a large extent. The idea that he'd have to accept the results of an election in 2009 is ridiculous because the oligarchy that opposed him would be in charge of ensuring the results they wanted. To this day, that's what's been happening.
2 роки тому
On the referendum: www.reuters.com/article/uk-honduras-military-sb/honduras-in-crisis-over-president-re-election-bid-idUKTRE55O61Y20090625 On Obama condemning the coup: www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-condemns-Honduran-coup-3294195.php
@ Reposting this (not sure why my first reply isn't showing up): That Reuters article contradicts what Reuters said in Spanish the day before. I see it's the same reporter, but a different editor, which is interesting. Here it clarifies that the vote Zelaya was calling for was non-binding and merely designed to get sense of existing public support for adding a referendum on drafting a new constitution to the November ballot later that year. It also clarifies that Zelaya never expressed a desire to reelect himself, but that it was speculated by political observers. (Actually, this is also alluded to in that SFGate article you link.) mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idLTASIE55N06G20090624 This piece here discusses the Obama administration's response to the coup (beyond his words to the press): america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
2 роки тому
the referendum was entirely about permitting re-election. It says it in the first two paragraphs of the article you posted. Zelaya being coy about it is meaningless. It's very common for Latin American leaders to say one thing and do another. As to the al-jazeera article. That's an opinion piece. The bottom line is that there was a coup, Obama called it a coup and tried to do something about it, but there was very little he could do because there was little time and there were divisions within the American military about it. I suppose he could have done more, but this video is trying to be as neutral and as brief as possible. Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to permit re-election, the military ousted him because of it, there was a deal to try to let him finish out his term. He said no. That's it.
@ Well, I know it's a brief history, and I respect the work you do. We'll need to agree to disagree on how we interpret some of these things. But I think it's problematic to take Obama's words at face value---even when his administration's actions didn't align with his words---but to apply a more a skeptical lens on what "Latin American leaders" say. I also think it's a mistake to dismiss the Al Jazeera article because it's an opinion piece----yes, it's a discussion piece that expresses an opinion, but it states several indisputable facts---and to take the Reuters articles at face value because they're not labeled "opinion pieces". In reality, there is no such thing as objectivity or neutrality, in journalism, in how you teach history or in anything. The Reuters piece I posted indeed implies that the constitutional changes would be primarily or solely to permit reelection: "...reformar la constitución y permitir la reelección presidencial" (literally: "reform the constitution AND permit presidential reelection"... emphasis my own). It doesn't say it was only for permitting reelection; that's the media's speculation based on what other Latin American countries have done (the first few articles on this issue in early 2009 mention that reelection is something that other leaders in the region had pushed for when they made constitutional changes). Zelaya's time in office caused chaos because of a number of reforms he initiated that were unpopular with the Honduran oligarchy---which also own the news media---including raising the minimum wage and attempting land reform. The constitution prevented him from doing much of what he had set out to do, and he often complained about its neoliberal design. The fact that the Honduran and global news media focused on the very polemical possibility of reelection, the one constitutional change Zelaya actually never brought up, is revealing of the media barons' own sympathies.
as someone who lived during that period of honduran history@@jhermosillo3552 I will say, to me the coup was a good thing cause the economy was collapsing because of zelaya's reforms and it was well on to becoming another venezuela. It may have been unconstitutional, but it was the better outcome.
Gracias por este video. Soy de Tejas pero mi novia es de Honduras y he querido aprender más de la historia de su país!
Qué bueno que te sirvió. Y buena suerte con tu novia. Los hondureños son buena gente.
I don’t know where he got this information from but it’s all true because I studied some of these things before finding this video and I even learned more Today thanks for the video today I learned more about my country.
I call it a miracle he found those infos.
I love these videos. From here I can research and learn more about the country and culture. Good place to start. Ty
so informational gracias!!!!!
I found this very educational. Thanks, Profe. I'm going on to more of your videos.
My pleasure. I started this for my classes, but I find it very rewarding that other people find it useful. Thanks for watching.
Great video! An update should be made. The wife of deposed President Zelaya is now President of Honduras. Former President Hernandez is now in prison in the US for Drug Traffic.
Thank you. Useful and informative.
thanks for watching!
you're such a beast dude love this
Great video thanks
I from to Indonesian and i like to Honduras
Soccer war exists.
Me a Honduran acting indignant while quoting Patrick Starr:
"Well, maybe it was stupid, but it was also dumb" :v
Well, at least i can find some solace in the fact that we weren't the guys who went to war with Emus and lost.
Am looking at you Australia.
Soccer wasn't the reason for the war tho.
@@KwisatzHaderach97 i know, it's all just for comedic effect :)
Buen video, gracias. Podria recomendarme bibliografia para saber más de la historia politica de honduras y el origen de las problematicas sociales actuales?
Tengo varios libros en inglés que puedo enviarte. En español, desafortunadamente no. Pero hay disponibles en la biblioteca virtual de la UNAM completamente gratis.
Dime que es lo que prefieres y te mando alguno.
@ can you send me this list also. I only know English though.
I produced the whole history of economic development of the country since independence. What's interesting is that the agrerian reforms of the 1970s-80s is what dissuade the country from developing notions of revolutions as it happened in many Latin America states.
Columbus was not the first European to set foot in the America.The Vikings beat him by at least 400 years.
Soccer war! Thats crazy
Not many countries can say that a soccer qualification match sparked a war.
It wasn’t over soccer it was over land and immigration issues in Central America back in the day
Crazy how general paz garcia is related to me even bought my great grandfather his house
In the 70,s and 80's i remember two famos presidents from Hondu if im not wrong, Suazo Cordova in the late 70's ,,,,,,, and Jose Azcona 1986 ??? 🤔
Yes, both Liberals. Roberto Suazo Córdova and José Azcona del Hoyo. I just didn't specifically mention them because often I don't have time.
@ my grandma was the attorney general for Hoyo. They were very bad men
Grandpa**
Hi, I'm from Honduras
Saludos a Honduras.
Dios cuida de ti nación de honduras 🇭🇳?
De la página 140 lj bueno poca geografía
Did Leif Erikson not reach mainland?
yes, of course. That was meant to say Latin American mainland. Thank you for bringing that up.
Got to learn about my people lol
I was liking this until we got to the part about the US's attitude toward the coup. First, however: Although Zelaya may have been interested in permitting re-elections one day, that is not what the referendum was about (the referendum was about forming a constituent assembly to draft a new constitution). As for the US's response to the coup: Of course Obama and Hillary expressed dismay that laws were broken, but Micheletti met with US officials the night before the coup. Then, when Zelaya was forced onto a plane and flown out of the country, the plane refueled at a US military base first. The Obama administration didn't demand that Zelaya be reinstated, and didn't officially declare it a coup, which would have cut off Honduras from aid. (REMEMBER: The US has one of its largest military bases in Honduras---the largest in Latin America.) Hillary Clinton even said: "We do think that this has evolved into a coup." The deal mentioned here that would've allowed Zelaya to serve the final few months of his term included basically disempowering him to a large extent. The idea that he'd have to accept the results of an election in 2009 is ridiculous because the oligarchy that opposed him would be in charge of ensuring the results they wanted. To this day, that's what's been happening.
On the referendum:
www.reuters.com/article/uk-honduras-military-sb/honduras-in-crisis-over-president-re-election-bid-idUKTRE55O61Y20090625
On Obama condemning the coup:
www.sfgate.com/news/article/Obama-condemns-Honduran-coup-3294195.php
@ Reposting this (not sure why my first reply isn't showing up): That Reuters article contradicts what Reuters said in Spanish the day before. I see it's the same reporter, but a different editor, which is interesting. Here it clarifies that the vote Zelaya was calling for was non-binding and merely designed to get sense of existing public support for adding a referendum on drafting a new constitution to the November ballot later that year. It also clarifies that Zelaya never expressed a desire to reelect himself, but that it was speculated by political observers. (Actually, this is also alluded to in that SFGate article you link.) mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idLTASIE55N06G20090624
This piece here discusses the Obama administration's response to the coup (beyond his words to the press): america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/hillary-clinton-honduraslatinamericaforeignpolicy.html
the referendum was entirely about permitting re-election. It says it in the first two paragraphs of the article you posted. Zelaya being coy about it is meaningless. It's very common for Latin American leaders to say one thing and do another. As to the al-jazeera article. That's an opinion piece. The bottom line is that there was a coup, Obama called it a coup and tried to do something about it, but there was very little he could do because there was little time and there were divisions within the American military about it. I suppose he could have done more, but this video is trying to be as neutral and as brief as possible. Zelaya was trying to change the constitution to permit re-election, the military ousted him because of it, there was a deal to try to let him finish out his term. He said no. That's it.
@ Well, I know it's a brief history, and I respect the work you do. We'll need to agree to disagree on how we interpret some of these things. But I think it's problematic to take Obama's words at face value---even when his administration's actions didn't align with his words---but to apply a more a skeptical lens on what "Latin American leaders" say.
I also think it's a mistake to dismiss the Al Jazeera article because it's an opinion piece----yes, it's a discussion piece that expresses an opinion, but it states several indisputable facts---and to take the Reuters articles at face value because they're not labeled "opinion pieces". In reality, there is no such thing as objectivity or neutrality, in journalism, in how you teach history or in anything. The Reuters piece I posted indeed implies that the constitutional changes would be primarily or solely to permit reelection: "...reformar la constitución y permitir la reelección presidencial" (literally: "reform the constitution AND permit presidential reelection"... emphasis my own). It doesn't say it was only for permitting reelection; that's the media's speculation based on what other Latin American countries have done (the first few articles on this issue in early 2009 mention that reelection is something that other leaders in the region had pushed for when they made constitutional changes).
Zelaya's time in office caused chaos because of a number of reforms he initiated that were unpopular with the Honduran oligarchy---which also own the news media---including raising the minimum wage and attempting land reform. The constitution prevented him from doing much of what he had set out to do, and he often complained about its neoliberal design. The fact that the Honduran and global news media focused on the very polemical possibility of reelection, the one constitutional change Zelaya actually never brought up, is revealing of the media barons' own sympathies.
as someone who lived during that period of honduran history@@jhermosillo3552 I will say, to me the coup was a good thing cause the economy was collapsing because of zelaya's reforms and it was well on to becoming another venezuela. It may have been unconstitutional, but it was the better outcome.
Displacing a few peasants and indigenous!!! Are sure it was only a few???
yes, compared to other Central American countries, the displacement in Honduras was quite minor.
307th like
Finnally,Juan Orlando is going away. Also: 69