Vacara-I disagree with so much of what you wrote. I have read the book by Valentina Perguero. You need to do a little more reading yourself.
I didn't contradict myself when I said thousands conspired against Trujillo-they did. Virtually all of them were from the middle and upper classes. I don't know what else to say about that point.
The Reyna murders were not such a defining moment as you seem to believe. Women were murder by the Caudillos, the shock to Dominican society was that the Reyna's were wealthy, most of the caudillo victims were poor.
The situation in the DR was not calm until 1957. There were countless plots-many of them from the military(Blanco, the Trinity plot of the late 1940's, etc.).Valentina Perguero talks about some them, so I'm not sure what you meant by that part of your post either.
Trujillo was popular with the rural masses. 97%? No, probably not. I suggest you read the book I recommended eariler. That way I can avoid have to repost much of that material as I did in 2006.(Those posts were deleted...) The central premise of that book is that Trujillo did not rule by force of arms; he was popular and so could avoid trouble from the masses with his policies. Read it for yourself, then you can draw your own conclusions. You don't have to agree with what some historians write.
About Trujillo's educational achievements-yes, they were relatively modest compared to others(Castro). But they were a definite improvement. From memory-in 1920, only 120 students attended university in the Dominican Republic. By the time Trujillo died I believe the number was around 5,000. (My numbers are probably off, but this is from memory.) Yes, Castro has had truly spectacular results with his education programs, I've never disputed that. Trujillo at least made the effort. Trujillo was also involved in vocational education programs. You deride what Trujillo accomplished, but for the average Dominican, living in those times, the results were impressive.
I suggest you read the Turtis book, and a few others. Turtis was not the first person to write about Trujillo's popularity with the Dominican masses or his rural programs. He wasn't. I think the evidence of Trujillo's popularity among the rural poor is overwhelming.
If you can find information to dispute it, then post it and I'll discuss it. I'm always interested to read new information on Dominican history. If reliable information emerges, I want to know about it. I never worry about "being wrong" or some such thing. New information can change how people view history. This has happened many times. New texts, letters, documents, emerge and suddenly history is viewed in a different light. To me the truth is paramount. So, if you can find information which disproves what so many historians have documented-you should post it. I'm always willing to re-evalute a situation based on facts.
I think I covered everything in your post. Right?
I guess we will just have to disagree.
I didn't contradict myself when I said thousands conspired against Trujillo-they did. Virtually all of them were from the middle and upper classes. I don't know what else to say about that point.
The Reyna murders were not such a defining moment as you seem to believe. Women were murder by the Caudillos, the shock to Dominican society was that the Reyna's were wealthy, most of the caudillo victims were poor.
The situation in the DR was not calm until 1957. There were countless plots-many of them from the military(Blanco, the Trinity plot of the late 1940's, etc.).Valentina Perguero talks about some them, so I'm not sure what you meant by that part of your post either.
Trujillo was popular with the rural masses. 97%? No, probably not. I suggest you read the book I recommended eariler. That way I can avoid have to repost much of that material as I did in 2006.(Those posts were deleted...) The central premise of that book is that Trujillo did not rule by force of arms; he was popular and so could avoid trouble from the masses with his policies. Read it for yourself, then you can draw your own conclusions. You don't have to agree with what some historians write.
About Trujillo's educational achievements-yes, they were relatively modest compared to others(Castro). But they were a definite improvement. From memory-in 1920, only 120 students attended university in the Dominican Republic. By the time Trujillo died I believe the number was around 5,000. (My numbers are probably off, but this is from memory.) Yes, Castro has had truly spectacular results with his education programs, I've never disputed that. Trujillo at least made the effort. Trujillo was also involved in vocational education programs. You deride what Trujillo accomplished, but for the average Dominican, living in those times, the results were impressive.
I suggest you read the Turtis book, and a few others. Turtis was not the first person to write about Trujillo's popularity with the Dominican masses or his rural programs. He wasn't. I think the evidence of Trujillo's popularity among the rural poor is overwhelming.
If you can find information to dispute it, then post it and I'll discuss it. I'm always interested to read new information on Dominican history. If reliable information emerges, I want to know about it. I never worry about "being wrong" or some such thing. New information can change how people view history. This has happened many times. New texts, letters, documents, emerge and suddenly history is viewed in a different light. To me the truth is paramount. So, if you can find information which disproves what so many historians have documented-you should post it. I'm always willing to re-evalute a situation based on facts.
I think I covered everything in your post. Right?
I guess we will just have to disagree.
