While reading Honduras’ Ereba Makers, I felt that it was very biased against Western Society. I find that these days, Western society and culture are almost seen as the worst thing to happen to the world and I find that incredibly wrong.
Throughout the text, KM Hall portrayed Western investment in Latin America as a very negative thing, and that for the most part, Latin America should be left alone, as trying to help leads to exploitation. I disagree with this. I think that this perspective is outdated and very ignorant of how people in Latin America feel, and it’s built only on what is perceived on the surface. I will not deny and say that abuse and exploitation haven’t happened before, they have, but we are in different times. As someone born and raised in El Salvador, I can tell you that people in third-world countries seek and need foreign investment in their countries. If you look closely, Latin American countries that are doing the best economically, are countries that have plenty of foreign investment (e.g. Mexico, Brazil, Costa Rica). People hope and would rather work in American companies or other Western ventures because they provide better wages and working conditions as they are more likely to follow government and UN regulations than even locals. I think that society has made big corporations the enemy, yet that is not always the case, especially in 2020 when there are so many regulations on employment conditions such as minimum wage rates and employee benefits (yes, this exists even in Latin America and only because Western organizations have intervened). A corporation growing and becoming richer doesn’t necessarily result in the exploitation of workers. Both can grow at the same time.
Hello Andrea,
I really liked your post because it provides us a completely different perspective on the view of Western society’s interventions in Latin America. I agree with you in the point that there have been so many bad things connected with Western intervention( which as you say completely understandable because of the past),yet I also believe that we sometimes forget to see the positives it can bring as you mentioned eg. the concept of minimum wage…
Both sides are important to see because we have to realize one thing: things are not only black and white, there is actually a lot of grey in it too. Thank you for your reflection! VERY GOOD INSIGHT! 🙂
KATERINA
Hi Andrea,
Thank you so much for providing such a different view on Unit 3’s reading. I definitely agree with you in the sense that if Westerners had never arrived to Latin America, they might have had a harder time catching up with developed countries and learning how to grow economically as well as culturally. I really liked how you argued about the improvement of working conditions, especially minimum wage as Katerina mentioned as we can clearly see how minimum wage has improved the quality of lives for so many in the working class. I definitely think this is something worth discussing during class!
I appreciate these provocative posts, Andrea 🙂 From my understanding, particularly of Hall, I don’t think this is an either-or situation. For instance, Hall is critical of interventionist efforts in Honduras by developed countries that may be construed as extractivist or harmful to local communities. Conversely, she also participates in and supports Western investment that works *with* Garifuna communities as partners and equals. Many scholars, activists, community leaders, etc. support the work of NGOs and corporations that invest in developing nations across the world, but they also ask that the support arrives in a form that is respectful to local traditions, values, and land. One of the radical and constructive outcomes of such partnerships is that “first-world” countries also learn from the developing world. In relation to our course, we see this with agricultural sciences (such as moving away from monocrop systems or embracing fallowing). This shows that when the relationship isn’t one-way (the Global North imposing “solutions”), both entities are able to benefit. From this angle, “Western” nations and investment aren’t just good or bad. There’s a lot of nuance depending on if there is consultation or imposition, and, like you state, it is undeniable that the investments provide opportunities and growth for developing countries.
Your example of minimum wage is excellent. It would be interesting to go back and trace where underpaid labor first began. I’d venture a guess that, in the majority of cases, the shift from subsistence labor to wage labor began during neocolonialism–when Western countries established factories, mining, and large-scale agriculture in developing countries. In other words, Western companies implemented low wages that needed to be reformed. In Peru, for example, miners that worked for the US-owned Cerro de Pasco Corporation were paid in bonds that could be redeemed only at the company store. The corporation also repressed unions and instituted other unethical practices (e.g., holding wages to ensure that workers would arrive the next day to pick up pay). Variations on these practices occur even in the present (here’s a useful source if you want to see more details: https://tinyurl.com/y27hb2s5). In this case, and in analogous scenarios in the US, Europe, and Canada, it was the workers demanding fair wages that enacted the minimum wage, not benevolent companies. However, to your point, the Cerro de Pasco company also contributed greatly to the local economy and instituted health centers in the area, so this wasn’t merely an exploitative scenario. This is just one example to explain why “the West” is sometimes demonized and suspected of putting capitalistic interests ahead of people, land, etc., but, even in this example, it’s not black-and-white. I’d love to hear more from your perspective (here, via email, office hours). Thanks for the thought-provoking post!