This week focused heavily on Latin America’s relationship with North America, but most directly related to its relations with the United States. The majority of what is brought up is the negative aspects of what the America’s have done and I believe this is evident still today.
when we look at specifically the USAs relationship with people from Latin America, it is very much a difficult one. A lot of what was said in the earlier years have influenced how the states view these individuals. Today for example we have trump calling undocumented immigrants aliens, and We also have his support in the sterilization of Latin American woman at border camps without their consent. All these issues happening today relate to what happened with America and Latin America before.
As the text we read this week mentions, how under president Eisenhower’s administration they told Americans that Guatemala was a communist country and that it was a threat to America’s safety. However they only said this because the banana trade was no longer working in their favour. The government and the UFCO then used this momentum to invade Guatemala to overthrow the man in power who opposed the USA having such great power within their country. These ideas of what Latin Americans are is still considered valid today, that they still are a threat to Americans safety and they cannot be trusted. This is only one of the many examples presented within the text.
The text also discusses the complex relationship of these two powers when it came to mainstream media and modernization. As we see Carmen Miranda a Latin American actress and singer became huge within American media, however she was portrayed as certain stereotypes. This distorted how Americans saw latinos, especially woman being hyper sexualized. Yet this exposure also came with its benefits. As Latin American communities were getting more exposure, more tourism thus growing their economy. As well as other performers and artists from Latin American countries were brought into the American media. Thus the bad always came with the good when referring to Latin America and the states relationship.
1. does the good that American did in Latin America out weigh the bad?
2. how is the affects of America still felt in Latin America today?
November 3, 2020 — 12:50 pm
To me, (and I think this was mentioned in the text as well) all the good things the US did in Latin America was always motivated by their own interests. I think the level of resentment among the Latin Americans became quite evident from the readings, which I believe to be evidence from the fact that their ”good” actions didn’t outweigh their military interventions, for example.
As to your second question, the presence of US in Latin America can be seen in both culture but also in economics. For example, many countries manage their currency with the US dollar and in Argentina every 15-year old wants to travel to Disney Land in Miami. I think their interconnectedness has and will only increase through globalization.
November 9, 2020 — 7:35 am
Your comment made me think a lot about the tourism industry in Latin America. If we think about Mexico, for example, it’s hard to imagine what places like Cancun, Los Cabos and Puerto Vallarta would be like without all the tourists. And not only Mexico but other countries as well. I guess we got a taste of what it would be like this year with COVID-19, although I believe many all inclusive resorts have now reopened.
mirella reichenbach livoti
November 4, 2020 — 12:53 pm
I honestly think that we cannot consider what the U.S. did and has done to Latin America as something positive because in itself the motivation behind the U.S. imperialistic actions was always for their own benefit and the “positive” consequences such as the development of railroads, vaccines or the introduction of consumer goods was a reflection of their agenda. I know that Professor Jon always says that things are more complicated and I agree, but overall I don’t see misguided interventionism as positive. Of course, just blaming the U.S. for the problems of Latin America doesn’t lead to change, and our own governments and systems should be held accountable.
November 4, 2020 — 11:00 pm
To answer your second question, I think a consequence of American interventionism, at least to some degree, is the corruption of certain Latin American countries, which in turn obviously leads to other situations such as migration. Whereas some Latin American countries are cooperating with these migrations, the United States cut asylum capacity and guidelines to the lowest and most strict I think they’ve ever been, all while people flee from Venezuela, Nicaragua, and other states. Though corruption is prevalent for many reasons, the unstable regimes and economic tinkering done by the US certainly plays a role in this.
November 4, 2020 — 11:39 pm
I do believe holding America accountable for their negative intervention is key to find the root of some problems seen in Latin countries. However, you cannot just single out one country. With the damage seen, there are some positive benefits as well. It is a bit of a grey area. I believed you can keep the positive and negative effects on the same level to be able to grasp the whole picture.