This week’s reading and videos were on modernization and its ramifications in 19th century Latin America, which is a many-sided concept that means wildly different things for the different people involved. Numerous processes converged to reorganize society, but in many ways the basic power hierarchy seemed to adjust but stay in place. A reliance on export-led growth was fundamental to the rise of “modernism” in the region; but rather than something unprecedented, it can also be seen as a continuation of the colonial infrastructure that was put in place to extract wealth from the Americas. Ostensibly, this reinvention of the economy was an attempt for the new nations of Latin America to emerge into the world community, and become an integral part of global networks along with Europe and North America. To many, modernization and the indebtedness that came along with it seemed like trading an extraction-oriented colonial overlord for a profit-oriented domestic elite funded by foreign investors.
The reconfiguration of national economies to maximize production of a single, lucrative product made independent countries overly reliant on the unpredictable foreign demand for that good. This phenomenon is called a “banana republic” precisely because of the hardships that many Central American labor pools went through when they were enticed into only growing bananas, and all in the name of progress. Effectively, however, many marginalized groups saw themselves as part of a machine that was built to generate wealth for those who were already rich.
This week’s materials also touched on how the concept of order, rather than universal freedom, took hold among the elites in Latin America. This mentality that justifies exploitation is still pervasive around the world today. This philosophy is inherently classist, and existed only to fight off social change, even in the face of the unprecedented technological change that was introduced to the region. Instead of letting the masses of Latin America participate in government, it seemed like a better idea for many of the white landowners to maintain society as it was and leave unchanged Latin America’s place in the world.
Even though on the surface level, the economies of Latin America were expanding during this era, we have to change our thinking and consider that perhaps an expanding economy is not a perfect indicator of “progress,” whatever that may be.
Adding onto when you said ‘the concept of order, rather than universal freedom, took hold among the elites in Latin America’, I found it very interesting that the elites used the idea (or ‘excuse’) that the citizens did not have the capacity to use democracy properly – that they couldn’t handle the freedom that democracy granted – and thus needed to be ruled by someone else until order was instilled in the people. Effectively, it is not democracy if people are forced first into behaving a certain way or believing in certain things AND THEN offered ‘choice’. It’s rather like brainwashing someone and then telling them ‘now you have a choice’ when really, since you’ve brainwashed them, you know what they’re now going to choose.
I agree with Diane. Díaz repeatedly assures that he supports democracy, but contradicts himself over and over again. The journalist mentions that the “elections” were mere formalities.