A comparison of two speeches that I have lost

Simon Bolivar and Fidel Castro each had (and still have) diligent faith in the countries of Latin America. These speeches were conducted under extremely different circumstances. However, they both displayed the author’s views of revolution in Central and South America. Nevertheless, these views differ greatly, articulating an overwhelming tone of revolution and innovation in one, while honing an intelligent hypothesis in the other.
In Simon Bolivar’s Article, he predicts the future of arising countries in America, and what governments will work for them. His predictions, however, in most cases didn’t really turn out to be accurate. For instance, he said that America could never succeed if a large number of states where combined under one government. He stated “As these parts have a common origin, language, customs, and religion they ought to have a single government to permit the newly formed states to unite in a confederation. But this is not possible.” (Page 2, column 1, paragraph 3). Bolivar believed while anticipating the establishment of great power and global influence in Latin American countries, such as Chile, Panama, Venezuela, and other countries.
Opposed to Bolivar’s informative article, Castro wrote a persuasive speech that was most likely written to Latin American citizens to motivate them to take a stand in their positions in the world. His ideas on revolutionizing Latin America where not formed off of a hypothesis, but on an action initiative. One of the things he said was, “And what does the Cuban Revolution teach: That revolution is possible, that the peoples can make it, that in today’s world there is no force strong enough to impede the peoples liberation movements.” This speech seems to imply excitement for revolt against economically powerful countries.
After reading and analyzing both essays, I am prone to assume that these two articles don’t really go well together besides their common topics of Latin America and revolution. They each had completely different tones, yet unlikely as it seems, they both had an amazing assurance that Latin America will one day be the center of globalization, as well as hold positions of power in the future world economy and political structure. The assurance of this idea is mutually strong, and in both cases conducts an energy that compels the reader to believe that Latin America is the next great world power.