Talk:Victoriano Lorenzo

Inaccuracy

The article claims that Lorenzo was killed because of his "refusal" to give up the arms. This is not true, to some other accounts. Apparently, a liberal general was charged against the Congress in Bogota for acts of corruption by Lorenzo and Belisario Porras. When the general came to power, retaliated and sent to jail them, just that was warned and escaped to Nicaragua, but Lorenzo's messenger did got him on time to tell him about what was coming. So the false charges and death. Everything else is Panamanian leftists legend, trying to create their own "cholo martyr " with ideological purposes. --190.34.213.66 (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious about 190.34.213.66's implication that the narratives of Lorenzo's life serve ideological purposes. This is worth discussing in the article, and will also help us assess available sources. Can anyone research this? Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lorenzo's motives

I removed the following because I don't think it is necessary for the article, and it has remained without citations since the article's creation in 2005:

Lorenzo is considered by some to have waged a war that was ultimately with separation in mind, while others see it as a class war against white elites.

Sondra.kinsey (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sourced opinions

It is often said that Porras and Lorenzo fought for Panamanian independence, but really, they were for a better deal for Panama within Colombia, and a more just Colombia in general.

Summary Trial?

We have competing claims on Lorenzo's trial:

Lorenzo was imprisoned for several months before the order came from Bogota, Colombia to shoot him for robbery and murder

Lorenzo was seized, paraded before a kangaroo court for a summary farce of a trial and promptly executed.

Political context of Panamanian independence

This needs to be integrated into the article:

In 1903, U.S. geopolitical interests in the isthmus coincided with the economic interests of Panama’s commercial real-estate elite. This led U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt to support Panama’s separation from Colombia and establishment as a colony of the United States.3 Although this development was supported by a Liberal-Conservative coalition in Panama, dissident Liberals such as Victoriano Lorenzo and Belisario Porras denounced the new arrangement as detrimental to Panama‘s self-determination, territorial integrity, and political independence. The Liberal-Conservative coalition, supported by the United States, executed Lorenzo and sent Porras, who later became president in 1912, into exile! After getting rid of the Liberal dissidents, the Liberal-Conservative coalition moved quickly to abolish the Panamanian armed forces in 1904, thus eliminating the sole competitor to the U.S. military presence in Panama. With the acquiescence of the Panamanian oligarchy, the United States was now able to set up a 500-square-mile colony inside Panama’s territory, build the canal within this colony, and turn the rest of Panama into a protectorate or semi-colony. The protectorate lasted until 1936, when due to substantial urbanization new social forces emerged-urban dwellers, workers, artisans, and professionals- to challenge U.S. power in Panama and to question the capacity of oligarchy to provide for increased political participation and economic concessions from the United States ’ During the protectorate period, the United States dominated Panamanian politics. They mediated between the weak, faction-ridden, and personalist political parties while repressing urban civic organizations and radical labor and political groups

References