Help me please! I realize that my essay does not flow and it gets confusing. Maybe if someone could add another point that would tie the different parts together? This is due today actually (my fault for procrastinating). I still have to add how this relates to me, but if you think this is terrible and incoherent, let me know if I should just scrap this and start over.
Most of the refrigerators I saw in Nicaragua had a poster of Daniel Ortega plastered on the front, commemorating the 30th anniversary of Ortega's victory over the dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle. But if you opened the fridge, you would find it mostly empty, with only bottles of nail polish and peeled mangos inside. The room that the fridge stands in has no furniture, with the exception of a stack of white plastic chairs. Poverty is apparent, and with the unemployment rate at 80%, there is little hope of breaking out of it. However on July 19th, the day of the anniversary, I saw red and black flags brought out and heard a cacophony of revolutionary music blasting from every house in the community. "ĄViva Daniel!" my host mother shouted, pulling me to dance to a particularly lively ranchero song.
As an American volunteer in Nicaragua, a nation whose history with the United States has been turbulent, politics were a reoccurring topic in dinner table discussions. One evening's conversation was centered on the United States and the effects of capitalism, to which my companions were vehemently opposed. Socialism, communism, capitalism: which of these socio-economic systems is most beneficial for its people? How is this judged? When the Soviet Union controlled the Eastern Bloc, its citizens longed for the capitalism of America. Anti-communist movements, like Solidarity in Poland and the Hungarian Revolution, were formed. On the other hand, in Latin America, Cuba and Nicaragua have embraced socialist ideals in opposition to their previous governments controlled by U.S.-backed dictators. History has buried and elevated certain political structures, yet this "selection of the fittest" has not led to a comprehensive system of governance. There have been countless instances where a stronger world power has impressed its supremacy on the government of its subordinates - the U.S. and Iraq, Russia and the Eastern European nations, Rome and its empire - but the diversity of government remains.
Most of the refrigerators I saw in Nicaragua had a poster of Daniel Ortega plastered on the front, commemorating the 30th anniversary of Ortega's victory over the dictator Anastasio Somoza Debayle. But if you opened the fridge, you would find it mostly empty, with only bottles of nail polish and peeled mangos inside. The room that the fridge stands in has no furniture, with the exception of a stack of white plastic chairs. Poverty is apparent, and with the unemployment rate at 80%, there is little hope of breaking out of it. However on July 19th, the day of the anniversary, I saw red and black flags brought out and heard a cacophony of revolutionary music blasting from every house in the community. "ĄViva Daniel!" my host mother shouted, pulling me to dance to a particularly lively ranchero song.
As an American volunteer in Nicaragua, a nation whose history with the United States has been turbulent, politics were a reoccurring topic in dinner table discussions. One evening's conversation was centered on the United States and the effects of capitalism, to which my companions were vehemently opposed. Socialism, communism, capitalism: which of these socio-economic systems is most beneficial for its people? How is this judged? When the Soviet Union controlled the Eastern Bloc, its citizens longed for the capitalism of America. Anti-communist movements, like Solidarity in Poland and the Hungarian Revolution, were formed. On the other hand, in Latin America, Cuba and Nicaragua have embraced socialist ideals in opposition to their previous governments controlled by U.S.-backed dictators. History has buried and elevated certain political structures, yet this "selection of the fittest" has not led to a comprehensive system of governance. There have been countless instances where a stronger world power has impressed its supremacy on the government of its subordinates - the U.S. and Iraq, Russia and the Eastern European nations, Rome and its empire - but the diversity of government remains.