Jair Bolsonaro rode the right-wing populist wing to power in 2018. Furthermore, he has acted like Hitler when referring to the Indigenous people and other minorities. Bolsonaro has gone as far as to label Brazil's indigenous people as "inferior" and has talked about "wiping them out.” However, his most cruel impulses are reserved for disregarding the Amazon rainforest, because he does not believe in climate change. Indigenous Brazilian tribal leaders have even gone as far as to file two requests with the International Criminal Court (ICC) one for genocide and another for crimes against humanity. Crimes against Humanity charge is because of his deforestation policies, and they genocide refers to his COVID-19 policies. President Emmanuel Macron of France has even threatened international intervention to prevent the destruction. Let us constitute a new rule that you need to be arrested if you are a politician who committed crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court must issue an arrest warrant; if found guilty by the ICC the authorities in their own countries must follow through on the indictment. There is hope for making this a reality, given that Indigenous Brazilians believe they have enough proof to charge Bolsonaro with both Crimes against Humanity and Genocide. 
           
"Our house is on fire," tweeted President Macron in 2018 about his disgust with Bolsonaro for his lack of respect for the Rainforest and environment in general. While Macron's war of words with Bolsonaro may not have helped heal relations between the two leaders, it did inspire the leader of an Indigenous Brazilian tribe. Ninawa is a leader of the Indigenous Brazilian people, "Huni Kui." He wrote a letter to France's president urging him to use his power to stop what he calls the "predation" of his land. Ninawa wants Bolsonaro to completely stop farming, logging, and developmental projects that harm the Amazon. Ninawa came with more than a strongly worded letter; he even had a plan to stop Bolsonaro right in his tracks. Ninawa’s plan involved asking the European leaders to stop facilitating the trade of products linked to deforestation: soybeans, meat, wood. Ninawa has great hope for his plan to work because France is the new leader of the E.U., and Macron is already a sympathizer of his cause. Ninawa is not the only indigenous person trying to be an activist for the environment; two other Brazilian Indigenous women also take the fight head-on.
           
Samela Sateré-Mawé and Sônia Guajajara are two Brazilian indigenous women fighting to stop the destruction of the Rainforest and raise awareness about climate change. Samela is from Manaus, in the Amazon, and Sônia is from Araribóia, in Maranhão. "We Indigenous peoples have been activists long before this word even existed."[1] Samela and Sônia believe that the destruction of their homeland is tragic, but they also believe the far more significant damage lies in the future. They are highly aware of the changing climate and fear that not only will they have to suffer through deforestation, but their children will not even have a place to call home. As indigenous people of the Amazon, they think they should be the leaders of the climate justice movement because it is in their DNA. The perspective of two indigenous women gives a unique set of perspectives because the Rainforest is their home. Samela and Sônia’s work is impressive, it is nothing compared to the impressive work that Eloy Terena has been doing.

Eloy Terena is a lawyer for Indigenous people's land rights. Eloy himself is also an indigenous person who hails from the Terena tribe in Brazil. Eloy's village does not offer education past the fourth grade, so it is truly remarkable what he has been able to make of himself. Eloy has been primarily focused on Brazil since Bolsonaro was elected and is the lawyer representing the Indigenous people prosecuting Bolsonaro. Eloy genuinely believes that Indigenous people are essential in the fight to protect the environment and must take action on climate change. "Indigenous territories are the most protected areas and are responsible for environmental balance, for the protection of biodiversity, for the protection of rivers and lakes, and for that reason, these vital spaces are not only for the people who inhabit them but also, above all, for those who live in large urban centers.”[2] While having legal representation is crucial in this fight, actual scientific data is also needed. Scientists and researchers at the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) provided such evidence by documenting the varying effects that climate change and deforestation will have on the planet.

"Climate change poses additional risks to the stability of the forests. Studies suggest "tipping points" not to be transgressed: 4° C of global warming or 40% of the total deforested area.”[3] Those statistics are even more alarming given that the destruction of the Rainforest has increased significantly over the past fifty years. PNAS argues that we should immediately stop deforestation because reducing deforestation will make the Amazon a global public good for creating high-value products and ecosystem services. If humans do not stop deforestation, PNAS warns that the Amazon will lose it’s biodiversity and cause irreversible damage to the tropical forests. Another concern that PNAS has is that deforestation will also lead to the lengthening of the dry season. The first graph represents what amount of forest area will be left after climate change, and it makes predictions well into the year 2050. The second graph represents the predicted distribution of natural biomes after deforestation. However, an essential part of the article is the two experiments they conducted. One experiment was climate change only, and the other was climate change/deforestation/fire experiments. While PNAS is hopeful that we can do harm-reduction by changing specific policies, they also issued a stark warning. Which alleges that while stopping deforestation will preserve biodiversity and ecosystem services, it will not be enough to stop climate change globally. They recommend every nation needs to follow through on their promises in the Paris Climate Accords and then some.

​Let 2022 be the beginning of a new era where leaders who cause destruction and suffering in a suit from behind a desk are held just as responsible as the ax murderer walking down the street. The Indigenous tribes of Brazil believe they have enough evidence to prosecute Jair for genocide and crimes against humanity successfully. Eloy said, "we believe there are acts in progress in Brazil that constitute crimes against humanity, genocide, and ecocide.”[4] Along with his environmental policies, Bolsonaro also mismanaged COVID-19 in his country, which hit the indigenous communities the hardest. Approximately 900,000 indigenous people are more susceptible to COVID-19 because of their weaker immune systems, and an estimated 1,166 have passed away. These horrific crimes are being flaunted in the open with no fear of repercussion, and accountability needs to happen. If a nation leader commits a crime, the International Criminal Court must issue an arrest warrant; if found guilty of genocide by the ICC, the authorities in their own countries must follow through on the indictment.

​Bibliography
Brazão, Mariana, Lara Bartilotti Picanço, and Natália Tosi. “Interview with Eloy Terena, Indigenous Land Rights Activist in Brazil.” Wilson Center, August 9, 2021. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/interview-eloy-terena-indigenous-land-rights-activist-brazil.
 
 
Cetinic, Oleg. “Indigenous Leader to France's Macron: Save the Amazon.” AP NEWS. Associated Press, October 2, 2021. https://apnews.com/article/climate-change-france-paris-forests-emmanuel-macron-d66a05f0ed407b2429fb84e4f349b0f6.
 
James, Chantal. “In Conversation with Two Indigenous Women Fighting for the Future of the Amazon-and the Planet.” Vogue, December 13, 2021. https://www.vogue.com/article/sonia-guajajara-samela-satere-mawe-brazil-amazon-interview.
 
Nobre, Carlos A., Gilvan Sampaio, and Laura S. Borma. “Land-Use and Climate Change Risks in the Amazon and the Need of a Novel Sustainable Development Paradigm.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. U.S. National Library of Medicine. Accessed April 7, 2022. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27638214/.

​Over the past few years, there has been widespread debate about the validity and morality of (keeping up and tearing down) statues of controversial historical figures. The conservative side of the argument contests that tearing down the statues, no matter when they were erected, is an activity which will surely lead to us forgetting or neglecting our history.
           
​When we think of statues of individuals, we know that there is a celebratory characteristic to them, inherent to their statuesque form. We know this because, when we consider erecting a statue of someone, we think of individuals who we believe should be celebrated: civil rights leaders, union activists, philanthropists, and humanists. We associate the construction of statues of historical figures with a celebration of the individual being depicted. No one ever imagines (in our time) erecting a statue of a figure who is disliked; no rational person in the twenty-first century wants to construct a statue of Adolf Hitler or Il Duce. The reason for this immediate rejection of the notion of architecturally institutionalizing these controversial figures of history is that we associate statues themselves with positive figures; at least we do in modern times. The positive connotation of statues of individuals is important for this essay’s later conclusions.
           
One might argue that we do not only erect monuments to historical leaders, but to events as well. Indeed, we have memorials for the World Wars, battles, tragedies, and conflicts all over the world. And yet these monuments do not follow the above criteria that says statues are celebratory. This is because there is a disconnect between the figure and meaning of statues and memorials. We erect statues to commemorate people of great dignity, worthy of respect. We erect memorials to honour (remember) past tragedies. No one could argue that a Holocaust memorial means we are attributing respect to the Holocaust. At the same time, no one would argue that we should erect a statue of Adolf Hitler and claim that it is a Holocaust memorial.
           
But when it comes to the modern debate over whether to keep up or tear down statues of such figures as Robert E. Lee, an American general who fought on the side of the South in the American Civil War (that is, he fought for slavery), people seem to lack the reasoning that says morally bad people should not be commemorated by statues. Whereas it would now be agreed that we should keep the history of fascist Italy under Mussolini confined to history books rather than statues, there lacks that consensus over statues which already exist. This is to say that while no one wants to put up a statue of Mussolini, it seems some reactionaries would have a hard time tearing one down. There is no explanation for the conservative argument other than general lack of critical thinking.
           
At least there is the consensus that more statues of Egerton Ryerson, Robert E. Lee, and their moral peers should not be constructed in our time. The argument persists, though, over whether the existing statues of these people deserve to remain. As mentioned, the conservatives believe that statue-removal is an egregious act because it constitutes the dismantling of history. In reality, however, the removal of these statues constitutes recognition of history; we must be aware of the history of the person whose statue is being taken down in order for there to be a valid consensus for the popular removal of that statue. The lack of historical knowledge only lies in the reactionary conservative minds, who think that these such figures were morally appreciable people who deserve to maintain their statuehood in the twenty-first century, despite the fact that statues are naturally celebratory.
           
Are the proponents of the statue-salvation argument so historically illiterate that they would idolize morally bankrupt, anti-humanist murderers, genociders, and slave-traders? It seems that way. Rather than understanding the contemptibility of some history, conservatives would hold that history remains true only in stone figures which predate us. Rather than read history books, conservatives would like to claim that their historical vindication comes through defending the commemoration of the worst people in history. Conservatives must come to realize that one needs not defend history to be historically aware; rather, one must acknowledge the unbiased truth of history, which leads us to oppose the commemoration of historical antagonists.
​
Perhaps it is time we quit drudging through the arguments of the macabre past, and live in the present, where the ethical values of these figures would earn them dismissal from any moral society.
           
​Statue removal does not in any way promote ignorance or apathy toward history. It does promote the teaching of that history by more morally acceptable means, such as in schools and general public educational settings. If these statues remain, our culture remains toxified by the slave-owners and racist lawmakers of the past. Let these statues fall, let the people learn their crimes in the history books, and let new monuments be constructed of those events which should be mourned, and of those people who should be celebrated (not just remembered).

​Countries in Latin America have often faced the possibility of U.S. intervention, whether it be economic or military. From 1968 to 1989, the governments of Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil, Peru, and Ecuador were overthrown, and they were usually leftist/Marxist governments. After the threat of Fascism was defeated at the end of WWII, two main ideologies competed to be the dominant force in the world. Capitalism and Communism. Latin America proved to be the perfect place for Proxy Wars between the United States and the Soviet Union to square off. At Operation Condor's height, the main perpetrators and advocates were Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon. Kissinger and Nixon were both big believers in the "domino theory," which was a theory during the Cold War that if one country fell to Communism, the rest in the region would fall next. So, to stop the spread, the U.S. and its allies would often work together to overthrow leftist governments and install opposition leaders in Latin America and all over the world. 
           
These opposition governments would be pretty brutal and murder thousands of innocent civilians in some cases. However, even today, in the 21st century, long after the Cold War ended, the United States still keeps trying to overthrow governments in Latin America. Two of the most recent cases have been in Venezuela and Bolivia. In 2019, the United States successfully ousted Evo Morales as president. Moreover, in 2020, there was a half-assed attempt to overthrow Maduro in Venezuela by American Mercenaries and exiled Venezuelan nationals. This paper will explore how the United States continues to overthrow these governments and the legality behind such actions. It will also examine how these coups look from the leftist leader's perspective using two documentary films.
           
Hugo Chávez came to power in Venezuela in 1999 and was often regarded as a modern-day Simon Bolivar, but his critics in the U.S. and elsewhere referred to him as "just another thug." Some of Chávez's most notable moments are his frequent criticisms of the state of Israel and calling President George W. Bush "the devil" during his 2006 U.N. speech. Chávez was born in Sabaneta as the youngest of six children. He was born on July 28, 1954, in Sabaneta, Barinas. His mom and dad both had jobs as school teachers and did not have adequate money, so he was sent to live with his Grandma in Barinas, a Venezuelan city. While serving in the Venezuelan army, Hugo became fascinated with leftist philosophers and revolutionaries such as Mao Zedong, Vladamir Lenin, and Karl Marx. However, Hugo took most of his influence from Ezequiel Zamora, a Venezuelan soldier and revolutionary, and he specifically referenced the work "The Times of Ezequiel Zamora." After Hugo was forcibly retired from the military, he began his work in revolutionary politics, eventually leading to a jailed coup attempt in 1992. After his release, he ran for president and was elected in 1999. Chávez's time in office was marked by improving five key institutions:

1. Housing
2. Food (price controls)
3. Housing
4. Healthcare
5. Education

 
Chávez was widely admired in Venezuela even after his death from cancer in 2013. Some citizens even have his eyes tattooed on their heads above their eyes. Hugo's rise to power is genuinely fascinating, but Evo's is even better.
           
Evo Morales was elected president of Bolivia in 2006 at the heart of the water privatization crisis. Evo's election was remarkable because he was the country's first Indigenous president after having all the previous presidents be a part of the white minority. After Evo graduated from high school, he, like Chávez, joined the military and eventually moved with his family to eastern Bolivia. He became active in the Bolivian worker unions and eventually became the general secretary of the coca-growers union in 1985. Evo eventually took an interest in politics, founded the leftist nationalist party, and named it “Movement Toward Socialism" (Movimiento al Socialismo M.A.S.). Evo eventually ran for president but lost in 2002. He ran again in 2005 and quickly won with fifty-four percent of the vote. Some of the pledges he made were:

1. Reduce poverty, especially among the country’s indigenous peoples
2. Ease restrictions on coca farmers
3. Renationalize the country’s energy sector
4. Fight corruption
5. Increase taxes on the wealthy

Evo's presidency was also filled with many anti-American sentiments, not just through legislation but through speeches he gave. "Death to the Yankees!" His disdain did not just stop  for America but Israel and NATO as well calling them "butchers" and "assassins." While he did have friendly relationships with notable U.S. politicians such as Jimmy Carter and Bernie Sanders, he remained staunchly anti-America. Even recently, he refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine and instead blamed America and NATO for starting the conflict. "A country which has "caused the death of millions with the atomic bombs against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Condor Plan in Latin America and NATO interventionism in so many countries of the world now threatens to make Russia' pay a high price' for defending its continuity as a sovereign state.”[1] Despite both Chávez and Morales being leftist leaders from Latin America, they were also both overthrown in U.S.-backed coups in ordinary as well. Chávez was successfully ousted in 2002 by the Bush administration and Morales in 2019 by the Trump administration. Two documentary films help explain how these leaders reached that point:

1. "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" by Irish filmmakers Kim Bartley and Donnacha Ó O'briain is about Chavez's presidency and removal.
2. "It was a Coup" by Maria Fernanda Rada is about the 2019 coup in Bolivia, how the U.S. was involved, and the human rights abuses committed by the interim government.

 
"The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" begins with Hugo Chávez walking around Venezuela, giving speeches railing against neoliberalism, and showing how the rest of the International community views him. It then explains how Chávez rose to power and what a typical day for him was like, as well as him doing his infamous TV Show, Alo Presidente, which allows citizens to call in and talk to Chávez. Viewers get to see differing perspectives on how the rich and poor view Chávez. Wealthy Venezuelans hate him and view Chávez as a communist who will destroy the Venezuelan economy because he wants to nationalize the oil industry. Poor Venezuelans, however, love Hugo and always wear these unique red shirts when they go to see him in public. They are referred to as "Chavismos." Western hostility toward Chávez increased significantly after he finally decided to nationalize the oil industry "Petróleos de Venezuela, PDVSA." This decision dramatically angers business leader Pedro Carmona and union boss Carlos Ortega, and they start scheming to overthrow Chávez. They travel to Washington D.C. to meet with C.I.A. and State Department officials. On April 11, 2001, opposition protesters marched on the headquarters of Petróleos while Chávez supporters headed toward the presidential palace. 

Chaos breaks out, resulting in the death of civilians, and both sides blame each other for the violence. Military generals head to Chávez and demand his resignation as President of Venezuela. Opposition leaders appear on the country's private tv network and tell the people of Venezuela that a new government will be established. Chávez's support by the people axes the new government's story that Chávez resigned from the presidency, and on April 13, figures of the new government were arrested. Chávez returns to the country after regaining military control and tells his people that they can protest against him, but they cannot defy the Constitution. Varying opposition leaders and participants in the coup either fled to the United States or stayed in the country because Hugo said no one would be held accountable. Events leading to Evo Morales's removal from the presidency follow a very similar path, and it is well documented in the movie "It was a Coup."

Evo Morales had been accusing the United States of trying to destabilize his government ever since being elected president. He even made a trip to the United States in 2013 to visit Jimmy Carter to help improve relations. Evo always had a rocky relationship with the U.S. Presidents, including Obama, because he thought Obama was pandering and imperialistic. His relationship with Donald Trump was way more tumultuous because of Trump's arrogance and embrace of "American Exceptionalism." When Trump threatened North Korea with "fire and fury," Evo Morales condemned him and said his threats were an insult to humanity. At the 2018 U.N. security council meeting, Morales tore into Trump and American foreign policy. Evo raged that the United States could not care less about human rights or democracy and listed the "failings" of the country. When the 2019 presidential crisis occurred in the country and Morales was ousted as the President, Trump and Elon Musk openly celebrated the news on Twitter. It became apparent immediately that the U.S. Government was involved in the coup.

"It was a Coup" opens with the beginning of the 2019 Bolivia election and how the U.S.-backed group "Organization of American States" influenced it. Organization of American States is an international organization created in the late 1940s to help cooperation between America and its Latin American counterparts. "In Nov. 2019, the O.A.S. issued a preliminary report questioning the transparency of the presidential elections when the vote count was still ongoing. Using this report as a pretext, opposition right-wing politicians Carlos Mesa and Fernando Camacho urged for demonstrations, which paramilitary groups and the Police supported." Riots ensued across Bolivia for twenty-one days before the European Union, O.A.S., United States, Bolivian Police, and Bolivian military urged Morales to resign. Opposition to morales is a right-wing racist Christian fascist government called National Unity Front. While a large chunk of the Bolivian population is Indigenous with their religion, forty-one percent, there is a small minority of "racist elite" that is very white and Christian. After the coup was successful, the Interim President, Jeanine Áñez, went to the Balcony of the Presidential Palace and held up a bible, and declared that "God has returned to Bolivia!" Áñez was not the only politician who viewed the coup as having the approval of Jesus himself, the coup leader and billionaire Luis Fernando had a very similar reaction.

"With a Bible in one hand and a national flag in the other, Camacho bowed his head in prayer above the presidential seal, fulfilling his vow to purge his country's Native heritage from government and "return God to the burned palace.”[2] The coup mongers in Bolivia felt justified in overthrowing the government because they had Jesus on their side. They were destroying the reign of the evil Indigenous people with their false religion. There were similar tones with the efforts of regime change attempts in Venezuela, not just in 2002 but in 2017 and 2020. Then vice-president Mike Pence said that the United States could not “just stand by and watch the evil Maduro regime destroy one of the most successful countries in our hemisphere.” When Jordan Goudreau's mercenary firm "Silvercorp" organized an attempted coup in 2020, he declared in a social media video that "a brave and noble operation is underway" as they invaded a sovereign nation. American mainstream media constantly portrays the ouster of a leftist leader as an evil dictator being thrown off the power by the American liberators. They never acknowledge the possibility that the replacement government could be even worse or that they will have the possibility to commit human rights violations.

Bolivia's interim government at the time did exactly that by Jeanine Áñez committing genocide against the Indigenous protestsers by ordering the military to execute protestors. Evo Morales was crying at the sight of what was happening to his country. "I want to tell you, brothers and sisters, that the fight does not end here; we will continue this fight for equality, for peace,”[3] Morales declared. Venezuelan opposition members were also accused of having fascist and racist tendencies and corruption. Jeanine Áñez's Venezuelan counterpart Juan Guaidó was recently caught up in a corruption scandal that many think undermined him as a legitimate presidential candidate. Specifically, Guaidó, along with other members of his team and various opposition members, were caught in an influence-peddling operation. "The interim government has become a group that has propitiated unacceptable actions of corruption that seriously hurt the democratic struggle and move us away from our goal of freedom.”[4] Essentially, the type of candidates that represent the opposition to the country's current government have many skeletons in their closets. However, it is never taken into account because of the economic and alternative interests of the U.S. government. For Americans to access this information, they usually have to go to alternative sources such as "TheGrayZone," "Redfish media," or leftist media from the country to find this type of information. While it is essential always to remain skeptical because such sources could produce propaganda, it still does not mean that the U.S. or western media, in general, cannot have propaganda of their own. It does not stop with western media producing propaganda either; the government and leaders also play an integral role in such propaganda.   

When Donald Trump was still president of the United States, he invited Juan Guaidó to the 2020 SOTU, State of the Union. He called Guaidó "the true President of Venezuela," with no actual evidence to back up that claim except unproven allegations of voter fraud in the 2018 Venezuelan election. Guaidó was then given a standing ovation by Republicans and Democrats alike. In the same year, when Bernie Sanders was running for president for the second time, he decided to support Morales during the presidential crisis of 2019 and agreed he was the victim of a coup. He specifically cited the Bolivian opposition's use of the military to secure their power as proof. "Now we can argue about his going for a fourth term, whether that was a wise thing to do... But at the end of the day, the military intervened in that process and asked him to leave. When the military intervenes, Jorge, in my view, that's called a 'coup, said Bernie Sanders.”[5] He was the only politician running in 2020 to call the events in Bolivia a coup, while all the other candidates said that Morales was on his way to becoming a dictator and needed to be forcibly removed. Scholars have researched this topic to see how political unrest in other nations is viewed by the citizens and leaders on the receiving end. Before taking a deeper look, let’s get the perspectives from the mouths of the leaders themselves.

During an interview with Vice News in 2020, Morales was asked how he had been doing since the crisis. Moreover, why does he perceives what happened as a coup. First, Evo begins talking about how his term was supposed to end on January 22, 2020, and he was forced to resign on November 11, 2019. Next, Evo talks about how the Police joined with the opposition, and then eventually, the armed forces asked for his resignation. The main reason why Evo decided to resign was to avoid mass murder on a large scale because of how the citizens were in mutiny. The interim government's massacre incredibly saddened Morales; 35 protesters were murdered, but he knew deep down that democracy would return to Bolivia, and his legacy could never be erased. However, Morales also saw a bright spot in the situation by claiming that his party would win over the younger generations after the coup. "For the younger generations, it is important to know what it is like to live under a right-wing government, under a dictatorship.”[6] Chávez had a very similar reaction to the coup attempt against him.

Before the coup attempt against Chávez, there was zero possibility of U.S. involvement because he thought the era of Cold War power politics had ended. However, after the coup was over and Chávez had successfully returned to power, he changed his tune and accused the U.S. of orchestrating it themselves. He even alleged that U.S. military personnel met with top Venezuelan coup leaders. While there was still no way to prove that the U.S. was involved with the coup at the time, evidence eventually emerged that the U.S. had prior knowledge of the coup. While giving no direct support to the opposition, they would have no problem seeing Chávez ousted. While these coups took place in separate countries, they both have a similar story about how they happened. Allegations of corruption or voter fraud appear, and the current government is portrayed as a budding dictatorship, so a coup is needed to save democracy. While it is essential to keep in mind that leftist authoritarian leaders have existed in the past and currently as well who are more than capable of human rights violations, it still does not excuse the actions of imperialist governments. So how does one know how to tell if a tyrant is trying to steal an election or if it is simply more lies from the U.S. State Department? Doctor Greogry Wilpert has an interesting analysis about how the U.S. did want Chávez ousted from power and got away with lying about their involvement.  

Gregory Wilpert is a doctor in sociology who is a staunch supporter of the Bolivarian Revolution. However, he did move to Caracas with his family to help outsiders get a better understanding of the current events in Venezuela. After Chávez died, he appeared on the independent American T.V. show "Democracy Now!" before moving to Ecuador to work for another T.V. channel. Before all that happened, though, he wrote a fascinating article regarding the 2002 coup attempt. "The first, most widely accepted version has it that Chávez was arrested by opposition-allied military officers on the pretense that he ordered the attack on the demonstrators; the coup plotters then proceeded to dismantle all state institutions in order to establish a dictatorship. The second version, told by the hardcore opposition, holds that there was no coup. In this telling, Chávez did order the Venezuelan military, as well as Chavista paramilitary thugs, to shoot the demonstrators.”[7] Wilpert later discusses how given that the two sides of the story are so vastly different, it is vital not to take any side too seriously. He later comments on how crucial it is to be incredibly skeptical of the U.S. because of Venezuela's large abundance of natural resources and the U.S. Government's long history of intervening in foreign relations for ulterior motives. Wilpert then mentions a book called "The Silence and the Scorpion" written by scholar and teacher Brian Nelson, who tries to give an accurate account of the coup. Wilpert criticizes the book as being an apologist for the opposition because the people he chose to interview for the book were four opposition marchers, three pro-Chávez demonstrators, three journalists, four politicians, and five military generals. However, most of the book is taken up from the perspective of three people Efraín Vásquez Velasco and Manuel Rosendo, Francisco Usón.

All three of these men are against Chávez and his regime, which Wilpert points out delegitimizes the book as a non-bias source. "Moreover, he leaves it unclear as to whether the book is meant as an objective description or merely a narrative version of his informants' interviews. One is tempted to think the latter since he never corrects their outright falsehoods, such as Vásquez Velasco's claim that Chávez "had always dreamed of a socialist Venezuela.”[8] Chávez did not even begin talking about socialism in Venezuela until 2005. While the research and analysis that Wilpert makes are thought-provoking, a criticism that could be lodged at him is the same he lodged at Nelson. Which is that Nelson was pro-Chávez and that he could not give an accurate account of the events that occurred in 2002. Another fascinating article further indicated the U.S.’s involvement and was regarded as one of the most censored documents between 2002-2003.

The article was written by an American journalist named Karen Talbot titled "Coup-Making in Venezuela: Bush and the Oil Factors," written in July 2002. Talbot is not  only a journalist but the director of the "International Council for Peace and Justice." Talbot begins talking about how Hugo Chávez saw himself as a Robinhood-like figure who stole from the rich and gave to the poor. It made him incredibly unpopular with wealthy elitists in his country and the United States. Next, she discusses how while the details of the coup against Chávez still need to be found, the evidence of the Bush administration's involvement has already come to light. Talbot uses two pieces of information about how prominent Washington and Bush's administration officials constantly criticized Chávez, and the administration failed to condemn the coup against Chávez. For example, Condoleezza Rice famously said, "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela, and I believe that there are significant human rights issues in Venezuela," Rice told lawmakers at a congressional hearing. "I believe there is an assault on democracy in Venezuela, and I believe that there are significant human rights issues in Venezuela.”[9] Other examples include:

1. Chávez did not allow U.S. planes to enter Venezuelan airspace during the war in Columbia.
2. Opposition to The Free Trade of the Americas (FTAA), and
3. Trying to get a better deal for Venezuela in OPEC.

 
Nevertheless, probably the most important was since the Bush administration had the support of a large swath of right-wing Cubans. Who not only demanded that Bush do everything in his power to end the regime of Fidel Castro, but due to Chávez's close relationship with Fidel, they demanded he goes as well. Serious opposition to Chávez started when he wanted to nationalize the oil industry, and the opposition had opposite plans to privatize the oil industry. The New York Times reported that one of the top oil executives met with coup leaders at the military coup leader’s headquarters. Bush's Latin American Secretary of State Otto Reich was a right-wing Cuban who was also a lobbyist for Mobil Oil and hosted the Venezuelan coup leaders at the White House. They discussed details about the coup, including when it would happen and its chances of succeeding. The London newspaper "The Guardian" also confirmed that U.S. military personnel decided to meet with the Venezuelan coup leaders in June 2001. U.S. navy personnel even decided to get directly involved in the coup by providing signals intelligence and communications jamming support to Venezuelan military personnel involved. "Seeing the disturbing similarities to the 1973 U.S. instigated Chilean coup-which occurred after one failed coup attempt- the majority of Venezuelan people are remaining vigilant about further moves to oust Chávez. The people of the United States have the responsibility and the possibility to put an end to the Bush administration's anti-democratic overt operations and military interventions in Venezuela.”[10] While the unrest that swept the nation of Venezuela is remarkable, it was not as stunning as the events in Bolivia due to the Brazen nature of the actors involved. 

"In July 2020, following the Bolivian coup d'etat, Elon Musk tweeted to his more than 40 million followers, "We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it." He made this threat in response to a Twitter user's accusation that the tech billionaire collaborated with the U.S. government to orchestrate a coup against then-Bolivian president Evo Morales as a means to gain greater access to the country's lithium supply after he canceled a contract to privatize Bolivia's lithium mines.”[11] Elon openly bragged about his company's involvement in the coup and that he feels entitled to overthrow governments to get natural resources. After Evo Morales returned from exile in Argentina, he read Elon's tweet out loud to a crowd of his supporters. "He was arrogant so as to carry out coups all for natural resources, all for lithium.”[12]

Gabriel Hetland wrote a very in-depth analysis about what he felt led to Morales's ouster in his academic journal of NACLA, North American Congress on Latin America. Gabriel begins talking about how to understand why the country's first indigenous president, who was able to achieve so much with social programs, infrastructure, and indigenous rights, had his career ended so abruptly. In order to help explain how these events unfolded, Hetland went back to all of them in 2016. In 2016, Morales decided to amend the constitution to have indefinite presidential elections, but it failed. Morales and his supporters wanted these indefinite elections because they felt that there would be a "dirty war" campaign against him. Their fears turned out to be legitimate because before Morales tried to amend the constitution, Bolivian conservative media ran a story about Evo having a love child. The evidence that conservative media used to explain their story was that the baby either died or never existed. Nonetheless, it had an impact because Evo lost the vote. He was successful in 2017 with the referendum and was able to run for president again, but it made him unpopular with the middle class. 

Hetland then further explains that after the Organization of American States (OAS) published the election fraud report after the election fraud report, it caused many people to take to the streets and demand that Morales resign and for a new election. However, it was not until the "Economic and Policy Research" published a report of their own that alleged the OAS was not being truthful. "A report by the Center for Economic and Policy Research makes a convincing case that the OAS acted in a biased manner and failed to present evidence of actual fraud.”[13] While Hetland acknowledges that the OAS acted in bad faith, he also makes some concessions that Morales had not been as popular as he was when he first came to power. Specifically, Hetland mentions an event that occurred in 2011 which pitted Morales against the very indigenous communities he was supposed to be representing as a presiden. Morales wanted to build a road through Bolivia's TIPNIS national park. This event was significant for two main reasons, the first being it showed his counterparts on the left were criticizing Morales. With not only the Indigenous people criticizing him but even one of his former UN Ambassadors, Pablo Solón. Secondly, the TIPNIS conflict caused a split among and even within popular-sector organizations that had previously been allied with Morales. "This led to a weakening of popular-class organizational and mobilizational capacity, a factor some analysts suggest explains the relative slowness with which some social movements came to Morales' defense after the November 10 coup.”[14] Hetland then reassures the readers that this leftist opposition to Morales does not mean the events that unfolded were a coup because the military were still the ones to demand the resignation of Morales. Hetland then describes how the interim government is a quasi- dictatorship.

Hetland begins by talking about the various human rights violations that the Áñez   government has committed:

1. State security forces have killed peaceful protesters.
2. The "acting" president, Jeanine Áñez, issued a decree exempting armed forces personnel from prosecution for the use of force.  
   
3. Áñez stated that Morales's MAS party might not be allowed to participate in future elections
4. The acting minister of government said that MAS senators would be detained for subversion and sedition.

 
Hetland also mentions how due to the Áñez's government's religious bigotry, there has been a rise in anti-Indigenous racism. There are instances of anti-Indigenous groups burning the wiphala flag, representing the indigenous community. What troubles Hetland most about the events in Bolivia was how Áñez came to power. In order for Áñez to become the president, it did not just require the resignation of Morales but his Vice president and the presidents of the Senate and Chamber of Deputies. Hetland claims that these were not voluntary because "they happened in the context of the kidnapping of MAS officials' relatives and burning of their houses. With those above her gone, Áñez staked her claim to the president's office, even though she had no constitutional authority to take on this role as vice president of the Senate, she had no constitutional authority to take on this role.”[15] So it is evident that human rights are being violated publicly and humanitarian efforts directed at helping the people of Bolivia need to happen immediately. Jeanine Áñez has been in prison since early 2021 and has attempted suicide. She is still awaiting trial for said human rights abuses. At the same time, it is clear that some scholars indicate that Morales was not the most transparent leader. There has also been a consensus that indicates a large percentage of the people of Bolivia support the left-wing movement. Furthermore, they prefer there not to be any coups or outside involvement.
           
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project put out a report in 2021, which clearly stated that since it only took a little over a year for Morale's party to return to power, the population intensely disliked him, Morales, or his movement. "Following Arce's victory, it is evident that the left-wing project is backed by more than half of the country's population. However, many on the left call for more transparency and legitimacy for political processes in a departure from the way that Morales has led the country in the past.”[16] Barry Cannon had a very similar conclusion in his academic journal, where he came to realize that economic inequality in Venezuela was so prevalent that Chávez's popularity was sincere. Despite all of his critics and flaws. "The Venezuelan opposition should accept the reality of this class division and therefore the Chávez government as a legitimate representative of the popular classes.”[17] Learning about how these coups occur and the amount of propaganda put out to keep one narrative alive and labeling anything contradicting as "misinformation" or "propaganda" is astonishing. 
           
These two documentary films follow Chávez and Morales around and try to get the most accurate dipication about not just who these men were. But also how their presidencies and their subsequent removal was viewed by their countrymen. There is an obvious bias because they do try to poraty Chávez and Morales in the most favorable light possible., but in a way, it is understandable. After learning how dishonest the U.S. government and business officials are about their true ambitions and involvement in these coups through scholarly works, it is hard to portray them as heroes or liberators. I think these documentaries are meant to show the other side of these events from the receiving end perspective and that just because someone you do not like is in charge of a country. It does not give anyone the right to take it upon themselves to intervene in elections or overthrow governments. Even in 2022, media outlets such as Redfish are being refused access to the Ukraine war because they are labeled as "Russian State Media." Even though they are based in the United States and are entirely independent, and have won multiple awards, it is essential to remember that there are two sides to every story, and then there is the truth. Moreover, to figure out the truth, every side needs to be treated as equal.

​[1] “Bolivian Gov't and Evo Do Not See Ukraine Crisis the Same Way.” MercoPress. Accessed April 20, 2022.

[2] Blumenthal , Max, and Ben Norton. “Bolivia Coup Led by Christian Fascist Paramilitary Leader and Millionaire – with Foreign Support.” The Grayzone, January 6, 2021. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/11/bolivia-coup-fascist-foreign-support-fernando-camacho/.
 

[3] Al Jazeera. “Evo Morales Steps down: Reaction from Latin America and Beyond.” Evo Morales News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, November 11, 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/11/evo-morales-steps-down-reaction-from-latin-america-and-beyond.
 

[4] teleSUR/les-MS. “Venezuelan Opposition Admits Guaidó's Team Committed Corruption.” News | teleSUR English. teleSUR, December 6, 2021.
 

[5] Malaea, Marika. “Bernie Sanders Is the Only Presidential Candidate to Call Bolivia President's Ouster a ‘Coup.’” Newsweek. Newsweek, November 20, 2019. https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-only-presidential-candidate-call-bolivia-presidents-ouster-coup-1472847.
 

[6] “Bolivia's Evo Morales Has Not given up on ... - Youtube.” Accessed April 27, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcL9aztJlWk.

[7] Wilpert, Gregory. “The Venezuelan Coup Revisited: Silencing the Evidence.” NACLA, June 26, 2009. https://nacla.org/article/venezuelan-coup-revisited-silencing-evidence.

[8] Wilpert, Gregory. “The Venezuelan Coup Revisited: Silencing the Evidence.” NACLA, June 26, 2009. https://nacla.org/article/venezuelan-coup-revisited-silencing-evidence.

[9] “Chavez Is 'Destroying' Venezuela, Rice Says.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, February 7, 2007. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17027314.
 

[10] “Venezuela's Story Most Censored - Jstor.org.” Accessed April 28, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23608060.

[11] Clark, Ziare. “JPIA: The Failed 2019 Bolivian Coup.” The Journal of Politics & International Affairs. The Journal of Politics & International Affairs, September 22, 2021. https://www.jpianyu.org/archive/2021/10/20/the-failed-2019-bolivian-coup.

[12] “Evo Morales Reads Elon Musk's Tweet - Youtube.” Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W4NU_spTCM.
 

[13] Hetland, Gabriel. “Understanding Bolivia's Nightmare.” NACLA, November 20, 2019. https://nacla.org/news/2019/11/19/bolivia-morales-coup.

[14] Hetland, Gabriel. “Understanding Bolivia's Nightmare.” NACLA, November 20, 2019. https://nacla.org/news/2019/11/19/bolivia-morales-coup.

[15] Hetland, Gabriel. “Understanding Bolivia's Nightmare.” NACLA, November 20, 2019. https://nacla.org/news/2019/11/19/bolivia-morales-coup.

[16] “Understanding Political and Social Unrest in Bolivia,” March 24, 2021. https://www.jstor.org/stable/resrep30078.

[17] Cannon, Barry. “Venezuela, April 2002: Coup or Popular Rebellion? the Myth of a United Venezuela.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 23, no. 3 (2004): 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0261-3050.2004.00109.x.

​
​Bibliography

Al Jazeera. “Evo Morales Steps down: Reaction from Latin America and Beyond.” Evo Morales News | Al Jazeera. Al Jazeera, November 11, 2019. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/11/evo-morales-steps-down-reaction-from-latin-america-and-beyond.
 
Blumenthal , Max, and Ben Norton. “Bolivia Coup Led by Christian Fascist Paramilitary Leader and Millionaire – with Foreign Support.” The Grayzone, January 6, 2021. https://thegrayzone.com/2019/11/11/bolivia-coup-fascist-foreign-support-fernando-camacho/.
 
“Bolivia's Evo Morales Has Not given up on ... - Youtube.” Accessed April 27, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcL9aztJlWk.
 
“Bolivian Gov't and Evo Do Not See Ukraine Crisis the Same Way.” MercoPress. Accessed April 20, 2022.
 
Cannon, Barry. “Venezuela, April 2002: Coup or Popular Rebellion? the Myth of a United Venezuela.” Bulletin of Latin American Research 23, no. 3 (2004): 285–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0261-3050.2004.00109.x.
 
“Chavez Is 'Destroying' Venezuela, Rice Says.” NBCNews.com. NBCUniversal News Group, February 7, 2007. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna17027314.
 
Clark, Ziare. “JPIA: The Failed 2019 Bolivian Coup.” The Journal of Politics & International Affairs. The Journal of Politics & International Affairs, September 22, 2021. https://www.jpianyu.org/archive/2021/10/20/the-failed-2019-bolivian-coup.
 
“Evo Morales Reads Elon Musk's Tweet - Youtube.” Accessed May 5, 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4W4NU_spTCM.
 
Hetland, Gabriel. “Understanding Bolivia's Nightmare.” NACLA, November 20, 2019. https://nacla.org/news/2019/11/19/bolivia-morales-coup.
 
Malaea, Marika. “Bernie Sanders Is the Only Presidential Candidate to Call Bolivia President's Ouster a ‘Coup.’” Newsweek. Newsweek, November 20, 2019. https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-only-presidential-candidate-call-bolivia-presidents-ouster-coup-1472847.
 
Mannion, Sean, and Carmen Soliz. “Main Navigation Main Menumenu Home about Current Issue Submissions Style Sheets Hahr Editorial Policy Open Forum Multimedia Interviews Thematic Collections News/Events GIS Maps for Jeffrey A. Erbig Jr.. Site Content Index Contact.” HAHR, December 18, 2019. https://hahr-online.com/forum-contemporary-bolivia-and-history-soliz/.
 
 teleSUR/les-MS. “Venezuelan Opposition Admits Guaidó's Team Committed Corruption.” News | teleSUR English. teleSUR, December 6, 2021.
 
“Venezuela's Story Most Censored - Jstor.org.” Accessed April 28, 2022. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23608060.
 
Wilpert, Gregory. “The Venezuelan Coup Revisited: Silencing the Evidence.” NACLA, June 26, 2009. https://nacla.org/article/venezuelan-coup-revisited-silencing-evidence.

​In a 2021 opinion piece for CBC News, Métis educator Karon Shmon argued that the stagnant state of the reconciliation process is, in large part, due to lack of education, and the sometimes-flagrant miseducation of the non-Indigenous Canadian population on the subject of Indigenous issues. She writes that the future of reconciliation is dependent on the proper education of Canadians: “helping individual citizens come to grips with Canada’s true history is the first step” (Shmon).

The importance of reconciliation is widespread in that it is not a matter specifically between Indigenous peoples and the federal government, but an encompassing issue which must involve all Canadian people in its being carried out. Essentially, reconciliation cannot be left to a vague “someone else” in the minds of individuals; the magnitude of some of the Calls to Action published in the final report by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission lead some individuals to think that reconciliation is someone else’s job, or that it is a purely political matter that the government alone will handle (Shmon).

The widespread apathy and ignorance toward reconciliation results from non-Indigenous Canadians’ misunderstanding of Indigenous issues, and must be combatted with education. Shmon points out the tenth Call to Action in the Truth and Reconciliation report, which calls on the federal government to “draft new Aboriginal education legislation with the full participation and informed consent of Aboriginal peoples” (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2). It aims to achieve this goal by “providing sufficient funding to close identified gaps within one generation” (2). Most Indigenous individuals would interpret this as a call to close the educational achievement gap in primary and secondary schools which disadvantages Indigenous students as compared to their white peers (Shmon). Most non-Indigenous people, however, would likely interpret this Call to Action as closing the gap in knowledge on Indigenous issues in the Canadian education system, which leads to a lack of understanding of Indigenous history and reconciliation in the minds of non-Indigenous Canadians (Shmon). This interpretation of the tenth Call to Action illustrates the fact that many Canadians have a lack of understanding and confidence in their own ability to participate in reconciliation. This lack of knowledge is due to “the insufficient and one-sided view of Canada’s history presented at all levels of the education system” (Shmon).
​
“The majority of Canadians have gaps – first in knowledge, and second in understanding the impact of colonialization and oppression on the Indigenous peoples who live in what we now call Canada” (Shmon). These gaps make it challenging for people educated on Indigenous history to have difficult conversations with those who are uneducated on the subject, as they must first explain the entire history of Indigenous oppression before they can even come to the topic of reconciliation (Shmon). For this reason, early education on the topic which carries all throughout elementary and high school would establish enough knowledge about Indigenous peoples for reconciliation to be a universally (nationally) participated-in task. Other individuals who have already finished their formal education also need to take steps toward continued Indigenous-oriented education of their own, such as reading the TRC report and/or other Indigenous-related materials. Education as the first step to reconciliation would rid Canadians of the idea that it is not up to them, that they are incapable of being involved in the necessary change (Shmon).

The state of affairs between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada, characterized by tension and general difficulty/misunderstanding, are founded in large part on how the educational institutions of the country teach Indigenous issues (Vowel, 175). That is, the false or romanticized aspects of Canadian history which are taught (and the true aspects of Canadian history which are not taught) culminate in a gross misunderstanding of Indigenous peoples within the settler population of Canada, which contributes to the state of discomfort and stagnancy surrounding reconciliation.
           
Multiple Calls to Action within the TRC report address the ways in which Indigenous issues have been taught in schools, and how they must be reformed in order to improve societal relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples in Canada, which is a component of reconciliation (Vowel, 175). This ‘tension’ between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadians must be ended through educational relationship-building, as “reconciliation is a term that refers to peaceful coexistence” (Aitken).
           
According to Vowel, most of Canada’s high school programs (at the time of her writing) had no mandatory Indigenous Studies courses, and only six provinces even offered elective Indigenous Studies courses (Vowel, 177). Nor does elementary school cover Indigenous issues properly: according to a study done by KAIROS (Canadian churches working together for peace and justice), which analyzed the degree to which provincial elementary education boards had addressed the TRC’s Call to Action 62.1 in their curriculums, not one of the provinces is deserving of “top marks,” and only the Prairie Provinces even “passed” (177-178). Saskatchewan, which scored highest, still had not institutionalized the teaching of certain “basic aspects” of Indigenous issue education (178).
           
​The general deficiency of proper education regarding Indigenous issues as described by Vowel speaks truth to Shmon’s understanding of the lack of confidence and understanding informing the absence of commitment to reconciliation among white Canadians. Where proper education is missing, so too is the will to reconcile justice in Canada missing; education is therefore one answer to the question of non-Indigenous complacency.

​According to a study into the Indigenous education policy frameworks of the provincial and territorial school systems, which arose in response to the TRC Calls to Action, there is progress being made in reforming Canadian elementary and secondary education systems (Wotherspoon, 1). Although this study critically examines the new policies, it does afford them some general praise: “our analysis of policy frameworks and related guidelines reveals considerable movement towards greater incorporation of Indigenous content in both school curricula and teacher education across the country” (16). The study also recognizes that education is the force by which Canadians can preliminarily address “damaging colonial legacies of schooling” (16). This is in agreement with Shmon’s article, saying that education is an initial step by which the whole structure of injustice against Indigenous peoples in Canada can be challenged. Though there are still issues in Canada’s schooling systems even after these initial reforms have been introduced, Wotherspoon acknowledges in the above quotations that they are changing for good.

​Perhaps the most preliminary action of reconciliation in the school systems of Canada is the education of teachers and instructors on the topics which need to be addressed in Canadian schools and universities. Teachers have the potential to facilitate change and promote the goals of reconciliation in classrooms (Aitken). An academic study was carried out and written on by Avril Aitken and Linda Radford, in which educators were presented with various readings describing the intricacies of Canada’s true history regarding colonialism and relations to Indigenous peoples and their disadvantage. The subjects were found to be widely undereducated on the topic, remarking on their own lack of knowledge on the subject as “completely oblivious;” but despite their own lack of previous education, most of the participants were motivated by what they read to “do something” (Aitken). They wanted to use their newfound knowledge on the historical and contemporary conditions of Indigenous peoples in Canada to be part of the change to that ongoing mistreatment and dispossession, either through passing on that knowledge to their students or by taking part in reconciliation in other ways (Aitken). Educators constitute one of the most important pieces of the system of reconciliation because they are the initiators of the subject in the minds of their students, who will then go on to be either complacent to the indecency of Indigenous peoples’ treatment within Canadian settler society, or active in the struggle against the ongoing injustice.
           
The result of education on Indigenous issues is a populous which is more committed to restorative justice, theoretically cementing Shmon’s argument that education is the first step towards greater reconciliation in Canada.

​A separate research experiment and general practice was run by a partnership of Anishinaabekwe and white settler teachers which sought to educate Canadian teachers and students on Indigenous issues by challenging preconceived notions about colonialism and Indigenous concepts (Korteweg). Where it was implemented, teachers and students participated in Indigenous community learning, in celebrations, ceremonies, or protests; there was a shift in the group “towards cultural humility, embodied holistic learning, and empathetic development,” and the practice led teachers to “more Indigenous-respectful pedagogies and developing relationships with Indigenous students” (Korteweg). This result of the experiment/practice proffers the conclusion that the very existence of proper Indigenous education is the simplest, most essential component to actual praxis regarding reconciliation. Where the Aitken-Radford study theoretically proved Shmon’s thesis in the subjects’ desire to incorporate proper Indigenous issues into their curriculums (Aitken), the Korteweg-Fiddler study proved Shmon’s thesis in practice, as the implementation of Indigenous pedagogy resulted in actual small-scale acts of reconciliation (Korteweg).

​The ongoing studies regarding education as a means to achieving reconciliation in Canada effectively prove that it works; where these often small-scale research projects are implemented, there is noticeable change in attitudes and actions regarding reconciliatory movement within the subjects of those studies. The effectiveness of these studies validates the necessity and call for greater educational reform in Canada to include widespread teachings about Indigenous concepts and reconciliation.

​Bibliography
 
Aitken, Avril, and Linda Radford. "Learning to Teach for Reconciliation in Canada: Potential, Resistance and Stumbling Forward." Teaching and Teacher Education, vol. 75, 2018, pp. 40-48.

Korteweg, Lisa, and Tesa Fiddler. "Unlearning Colonial Identities While Engaging in Relationality: Settler Teachers' Education-as-Reconciliation." McGill Journal of Education, vol. 53, no. 2, 2018, pp. 254-75.

Shmon, Karon. "Education is a key component to advancing reconciliation." CBC News, 2021. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/opinion-karon-schmon-education-key-reconciliation-1.6218534

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. "Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action." 2015, pp. 2. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/indigenous-people/aboriginal-peoples-documents/calls_to_action_english2.pdf

Vowel, Chelsea. "Indigenous Writes: A Guide to First Nations, Métis & Inuit Issues in Canada." Highwater Press, 2016, pp. 175-178.
​
Wotherspoon, Terry, and Emily Milne. "What Do Indigenous Education Policy Frameworks Reveal About Commitments to Reconciliation in Canadian School Systems?" International Indigenous Policy Journal, vol. 11, no. 1, 2020, pp. 1-29.

​On September 15, 2021, the National Assembly of Cuba published a new draft of the family code. The most notable amendment to the family code includes an article which would legalize gay  marriage. Thousands of grassroots meetings are currently being held to debate the amendment. The discussions are guided by judges and law students, who will process the information and submit it to the National Assembly by May. The National Assembly will then approve the changes made and submit the revised code for a referendum by the second half of 2022.
           
The amendment would reform the 1975 family code, which defines marriage as a “union between a man and a woman.” The push to amend the family code follows in the wake of the 2019 Constitutional Referendum, which strengthened anti-discrimination laws and almost resulted in the redefinition of marriage as “a union…with absolutely equal rights and obligations.” However, due to intense campaigning by conservative Evangelical and Catholic groups, the clause was scrapped. Despite the setback, Article 42 of the Constitution still prohibits discrimination based on sexual identity, “All people are equal before the law, receive the same protection and treatment from the authorities, and enjoy the same rights, liberties, and opportunities, without any discrimination for reasons of sex, gender, sexual orientation…” Although this doesn’t necessarily mean that same sex marriage is recognized, it does open the door for it to be legalized. The task of now redefining marriage is up to the new family code, and whether or not it will be ratified by the Cuban people.
           
Regardless of the setback, Cuba is still pushing forward in regards to gay rights. The early years of the revolutionary republic were marked by persecution towards sexual minorities. From 1965-1968, gay men were sent to labor camps called UMAPS (Military Units to Aid Production) as alternative to military conscription. The camps were demolished in 1969, yet in the years that followed homosexuality remained forbidden. The second half of the 1970s, however, saw improvements in attitudes towards the gay community. Workplace discrimination towards gay people was outlawed in 1975 and homosexuality was decriminalized in 1979. Attitudes slowly improved, but at the same time there were many mistakes. For example, the 1980s started off with the Mariel Boatlift, where thousands of gay Cubans, labeled as deviants, were forced out of Cuba. Despite the horrible realities of the Mariel Boatlift, progress was still made. In 1981, the Ministry of Culture declared that homosexuality was another variant of human sexuality and that discrimination towards LGBT individuals should be condemned. Nineteen ninety-eight also saw the last explicitly anti-gay law, the Public Ostenation Act of 1930, repealed.
 
Progress came at an even faster pace in the 1990s, and 1993 was a pivotal year for gay rights in Cuba, gay people were finally allowed to join the military and become members of the communist party. The age of consent for gay people was also made equal to that for heterosexuals. Finally, in 2010, Fidel Castro apologized for his persecution of gay people. By no means is Cuba a gay paradise, nor do gay people have as many freedoms as they do in America or Western European countries. Nonetheless, the situation for gay people is improving and in comparison to many of its neighbors and arguably some US states, Cuba is comparatively progressive. However, it’s always important to keep in mind that the road towards equity is not a smooth one, as shown in 1980 and in 2019, and at this point one can only wait with hope and bated breath that the amended family code passes.