This week’s materials highlighted the impact that large groups of people with a collective voice have had on the political process of different states in Latin America. In Argentina, after years of military dictatorship marked by the use of state terrorism to silence dissent, a small group of mothers took it upon themselves to speak out. 14 women who had their children disappeared during the dirty war met weekly in the Plaza de Mayo, the symbolic center of the country. This seems like an uneven struggle, with a handful of women challenging the legitimacy of an entire authoritarian state, but it saw the government’s response lead to its own undoing.

In response to the protests, some of the movement’s founders were disappeared like their children had been. When bodies washed up on the coast, including those of two French women, the international community began to pay attention to events unfolding in Argentina. This, along with perseverance of the protesters in the Plaza de Mayo (the most publicized space in Argentina) eventually led to increasing negative publicity on the state and eventually forced a series of investigations into past crimes, and legislative changes within the Argentine government.

The “people” of Argentina is a concept that the Madres personified and gave voice to. They took on motherhood as their defining characteristic, which is a basic human characteristic and is a feeling that everyone in the country can feel, regardless of political leanings. The message was clear—that as Argentine citizens they had the right to not be oppressed, and that as mothers they had the right to know what happened to their children. By taking such a basic human concern and bringing it to the political discussion of the time, the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo were finally able to introduce a discourse of human rights.

In the unpredictable political climate of Latin America, the government saw it necessary to create a controlled environment in order to maintain power. Its method of keeping order was through the use of violence, yet for years they were able to carry out acts of state terror without any recognition. Because it was also important for the government to keep up a good appearance, the dictatorship mastered the manipulation of the media. Even as the eyes of the world were on Argentina wen they hosted the 1978 World Cup, the state was able to turn the scrutiny to its advantage as Argentina became world champions and the Argentine media generated newfound patriotism that distracted many from the ongoing conflicts in the country. Eventually, the state was forced to change and investigate the dirty wars as “the people” also learned how to use the media to their own peaceful ends.

In this week’s readings and lecture, we see how poor relationships between the state and rural peasants across Latin America manifested themselves in violent conflict and guerilla warfare. These organization rose out of a political climate of inequality, where it seemed to many as though the governments in place only served to maintain these differences through corruption. Many of these left-wing groups, such as Sendero Luminoso in Peru, were seen as threats to the state in rural areas, where government legitimacy had never been completely accepted. In Peru, violence erupted and the country became engulfed in a civil war. Both groups had steady support bases and sources of income (Sendero Luminoso controlled a large portion of the cocaine trade out of Peru), which allowed the war to last decades, becoming a stable part of life in highland Peru.

From these readings we can also see the stratification that existed in Peru at the time. In Mario Vargas Llosa’s short piece, he notes how alien and shocking the violence among indigenous people seems to him. He notes how peaceful his life in the city is compared to the ongoing war in the Andes. This is indicative of the problem of inequality, where the urban and rural communities were so separated from one another despite their close proximity. Even as the elites of Lima go about their lives, they were sheltered from the despair experienced in the highlands. On the flip side, rural people, as Cameron notes, were not interested in events in Lima and were only concerned by their locality. This is a phenomenon that Fujimori saw as a willful disregard for the authority of the state. This separation is what gave rise to violent conflict. Sendero Luminoso’s attacks on Lima itself sent a message to close that gap, showing that both groups exist in the same country.

This scenario played out across the region, not just in Peru. Similar resistance movements engaged violently with states in Colombia and Central America. Seen through the lens of the cold war, many governments were supported by the United States because they had no tolerance for these left-wing groups, who were viewed by the Pentagon as potential sources of Soviet influence in the Americas. The US supported the efforts of military governments, such as in Chile and Argentina, as well as Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, which greatly aided right-wing states to impose themselves on their countries. Even in Peru, Alberto Fujimori, who on the one hand is often praised for crippling Sendero Luminoso’s violent, drug-funded hold on the countryside, but in the process turned the country into an authoritarian state with no room for any political dissidence.

This week’s readings and videos were particularly interesting to me. The “American Empire” that was constructed in Latin America was more subtle than those empires that had previously existed in the region, and existed through the use of different means. Nevertheless, it can be considered an empire in the sense that it was an external force that effectively dominated the internal structure of certain smaller states in Latin America. Even if not nominally an empire, at the end of the day American dominance relied (and arguably still relies) on the same export infrastructure that was built up during the colonial era.

However, the most interesting thing about American hegemony during this period was that it was not purely militaristic. The United States also earned popularity among many classes of Latin Americans through the power of its industry. To many, the United States because synonymous with advanced technology and modern technology. American goods and services were introduced into Latin American markets, and many affluent people wished to emulate the American lifestyle, as it was associated with comfort and satisfaction.

One fascinating example of where both of these aspects of American hegemony existed side by side is the construction of the Panama Canal. In the early twentieth century, thousands of workers were brought in under the supervision of the American military, and worked in deadly conditions to create a wonder of engineering in Central America, controlled from Washington DC. This is clearly an example of imperialism. However, in the construction of the canal, a massive sanitation project was undertaken. This was surely done to maximize worker productivity so as to better serve American interests, but undoubtedly it did have some very real positive effects in Panama, and won the United States many friends in the region.

The American empire was established not exclusively through external means. Increasing American influence had a polarizing effect on the domestic politics in these countries. Many people within Latin America welcomed an increased American presence in the region. In the countries that they dominated, the United States furthered its agenda through the use of like-minded, opportunistic domestic politicians such as Jorge Ubico or Rafael Trujillo. Both of these examples are clearly dictators who mistreated vast portions of their citizenry, but we cannot discount the fact that they (and the United States) did have some degree of domestic support.

Ultimately, the American empire is something that Latin Americans were involved in, it’s not something that simply happened to them. It wasn’t purely domination or coercion, but some combination of that and consent. The pre-existing social hierarchy laid out by European colonialism allowed for a mutually beneficial relationship between the Untied States and the top of Latin American society, even as this was simultaneously disastrous for the lower classes.