William de Rumpel

But he's terrified by it.

And one of his mixed race officers tries to rally black and indigenous support.

And Bolivar complains that what they wanted was absolute equality.

Next, they will want a padrocracia.

I think the thing we also got to focus in is his complete lack of interest in the indigenous culture and the indigenous people.

And he writes things like the Indian is of so tranquil a character that all he desires is repose and solitude.

He abolishes something we didn't discuss.

He abolishes something called the Indian tribute, which sounds progressive, but paradoxically it worked against the indigenous because tribute had at least conferred some claim to communal lands.

You're absolutely right.

And there's similarities, but there's also differences in that sense.

So just as Washington and the American founding fathers created a republic based on liberty while maintaining slavery and dispossessing on a massive grand scale Native Americans, we saw that Washington was one of the worst culprits in that.

Bolivar, in contrast, creates new nations based on Enlightenment ideals, but preserves the colonial hierarchies.

And both revolutions really, I would argue, were for the propertied elites.

My contention was that you're giving him a very easy pass to begin with.

To argue your case-

It is true.

If we're actually comparing Washington and Bolivar, the US enshrines slavery in its constitution.

It's there in the constitution.

While Bolivar at least makes an effort towards moving towards the sort of gradual abolition, even if it doesn't get very far.

So it's slightly better.