In my opinion, throughout history, the United States has unnecessarily meddled in foreign affairs. I enjoyed reading Sandino’s “Political Manifesto”. I liked how he openly challenged the United States. The “Political Manifesto” was also saddening to me because of how Sandino explained that Díaz and Chamarro were traitors to Nicaragua. Time and time again, the United States has felt entitled to get involved in foreign affairs and some Latin American leaders have enabled them to do this. I found Sandino’s expression “ambition killed their right to their nationality” very telling. It is evident that when a political leader enables foreign involvement, it is usually because of ambition. I believe that this phrase has a lot of truth to it. The American government wanted dictators in Latin America while it praised itself for being a champion of liberty and democracy. This is clearly very hypocritical behaviour and attitude.I found this manifesto to embody a fervent nationalism. I liked how Sandino wrote about his Nicaraguan pride, and his ardent desire to defend his country.
The document “From the Noble Savage To the Third World”, really encapsulates the kind of stereotyping that is so often seen in American films. Although one may brush this stereotyping off, it definitely has an effect on how people see certain countries. People develop an idea of a country without having even visited it. I found the paragraph about “Aztecland” to be very interesting. The author mentioned several things that people readily associate with Mexico. This is how a country or an area of the world is “disnified”. I find that “disnifying” only perpetuates ignorance. The cultural richness, and social complexities of a country cannot be encapsulated in a “disnified” form. I find that the United States does this to several countries as a way of “othering” them. They stereotype a nation, as a way of minimizing that country’s achievements and history. By portraying a country in a simplistic way, they fail to recognize a country’s history, art, scientific achievements, social complexities, various ethnic groups, and much more. Watching the video. “The Journey to Banana Land”, reminded me of how rich Latin America is in natural resources. This richness in natural resources has garnered a lot of foreign attention especially from the United States. It is evident that some Latin American leaders have compromised the Latin American peoples’ best interests by agreeing to unhealthy foreign investment rather than a cooperative one. My question is: has Latin America’s political leaders’ ambition and corruption lead to unhealthy foreign trade relationships?
I really loved the statement “the American government wanted dictators in Latin America while it praised itself for being a champion of liberty and democracy”, because it so perfectly describes the hypocrisy of not only the US but also of the history colonialism in general. We see this with all colonizers in history, and you really summed it up with that line! In response to your question, I think that Latin American leaders’ ambition and corruption are only partially responsible for the unhealthy trade relationship. Yes they had ambition, but the US used this ambition against them and took advantage of their desire to improve. I don’t think Latin American leaders inherently prefer corrupt governments, it’s just that the US endorsed that behaviour, thus a leader who has ambition and greed for power & success would want the support of the US most likely. I think the blame should fall on the group with the power in the unhealthy trade relationship, which in this case is the US.