Hi Everyone
Here are our notes from this week’s lectures:
Here is the text of Roland Barthes’ Mythologies in case anyone is interested.
In the comment section: Discuss your thoughts on the US’ “Good Neighbor” policy towards Latin America. In what way was it improvement over Roosevelt’s “Big Stick”, in what way was it more of the same. Finally, how did it influence Latin America culturally.
Next week we will talk about Chile under Pinochet. Here are the readings:
Here is a reading on the Chilean Arpillera movement which we will discuss Tuesday. Sorry, it’s split up into two files. Please read the prologue and chapter 1 from here. (not the whole book, unless you really really want to) Then read chapter 4 from Here
On Thursday we will discuss CADA and the Escena de Avanzada movement in Chile. Please read this article. Skip the sections on Ramón Griffero’s Teatro del fin del siglo and Marco Antonio de la Parra’s El deseo de toda ciudadana
The US Good Neighbour Policy was an improvement on the ‘Big Stick’ Policy since it led to more dialogue between the US and Latin American states and if only limited, it led to a decrease of US intervention in Latin America. But to a large extent US intervention was still felt such as the support for the Somoza regime and the fruit corporations in Central America. It influenced Latin America culturally by leading to a heavier presence of US culture in Latin America through Disney. Furthermore, Latin American culture was also promoted in the US in order to ameliorate relations between the US and Latin American nations.
I truly believe that the Good Neighbor Policy was a step towards the USA attempting to not meddle as much in Latin America and more importantly, to allow for the area to develop a more secure and definite self-representation and identity…while benefiting financially, of course. I think it was due to this policy, as opposed to the Big Stick policy, that countries could focus on what would define them as individual countries and thus began more nationalist policies, because they could count on reciprocal exchanges from the United States. I do also believe that both of these policies put the USA in a position of authority over the whole of Latin America, which total an area much larger than that of the States, with a much larger population. By putting the United States in this position of authority through policy, it really does not surprise me that many Latin Americans have internalized the feelings of a certain inferiority to the West (in politics or economics, for example), leading to emigration and adoption of American pop culture.
While I think that the ‘Good Neighbor Policy’ was a sort of improvement and had ‘better intentions’, I don’t think it made a significant difference regarding US intervention in Latin America. This might not have been as present, but it was still there; it did not stop the US from interfering in Latin American affairs and from spreading American culture. Furthermore, despite ‘trying’ to stay away from Latin America, these countries are now heavily influenced by the culture from the US to the point that it is hard to imagine a life without all the things that come from this country.
Yes, as far as the support for the Somoza Regime or the United Fruit Company goes the US right after announcing the Good Neighbor Policy decreased their physical intervention in Latin America. However, I would suggest that this acted as a catalyst among many other reasons for increasing Nationalistic sentiment in Latin American countries. As countries who have undergone many shifts in the distribution of power, Latin American countries felt that with the addition of the US acting as a meddler in their power struggles that they had to take back their borders. And quite ironically, the US helped them ‘take their borders back’ by later helping install and fund Fascist regimes. And as the US attempted to decrease their role as a universal policeman, they often either ignored the oppression created by these fascist regimes or kept them secret. This is all my understanding of the chain of events and by no means am I trying to say that this is factual.
I do believe that the ‘Good Neighbour’ policy was definitely an improvement from the ‘international policing power’ that define Roosevelt’s prior ‘Big Stick’ diplomacy. Removing occupational forces, and generally providing more independence and room for self-expression was a positive, liberating move – especially in comparison to the previous regime. However, this is not the say that the US had completely removed itself from the sphere of Latin American politics; there was still profit to be made, and therefore the US still asserted its power in the economic sector (i.e. United Fruit Company). Furthermore, the US had a significant impact on culture through the media, using Disney, for instance, to integrate US culture and values into Latin American society from a young age.
I think that both Big Stick and Good Neighbour policies allowed the US to put themselves in a position of power, authority that was hard to challenge. Even though the Good Neighbour policy was an improvement, and had better intentions to somehow “be friends” with the Latin American countries, I don’t think it worked as good as it could. USA was still condescending towards Latin America, and they kept interfering in their affairs. Latin American culture, especially mass culture, was really influenced by the USA at the time, while the American culture hardly saw any real impact from Latin America. United States just expanded their influence, economic and cultural. Though, this policy helped boost some nationalist movements in Latin America, and the countries could focus more on their own identities, implementing more nationalist policies. The policy was more about USA promoting themselves in a positive way and having support from Latin America, rather than actually focusing on establishing equal friendly relationships with the countries. Culturally, Latin America is far more influenced by American pop culture, than United States is by Latin American, though it is starting to change now, with a growing interest in Latin American content in the USA.
I think that each country should have total control over its own politics and relations with another countries. I agree that most of the countries of Latin America needed help to become independent but the US also was looking forward to take advantage of being involved in other countries matters. Although USA claimed that they were just looking to help Lastin America countries, they were also looking to expand their influence in the region. One of the proofs of this is the Roosevelt doctrine; where Roosevelt claimed that USA was going to act as an “International police”. In my head that sounds like he wanted to make sure that everything was being done to the USA’s best interest.
I believe that the good neighbor policy was at first beneficial for the United States since it promoted having good exchanges with Latin America. This new relationship with Latin America encouraged more respect and equality, rather than enforcing brute force as a way to achieve power and control. I think that even though this shift in policy was good for both countries, it still had its flaws in terms of power control and effectiveness. The policy implied principles of non-intervention/interference, yet the US still ended up breaking these rules during WW2 when they began to focus on other political matters. Thus, proving that many changes still needed to be made if both the US and Latin America were going to uphold this policy. I do not believe that these kinds of political movements influenced Latin American culture extensively, but I do believe that the media took a big part in cultivating Latin American culture. We can also see how influential and prominent US culture is in Latin American countries by looking at the various media sources found, such as tv, music, and fashion to name a few.
n
I believe that the good neighbor policy was at first beneficial for the United States since it promoted having good exchanges with Latin America. This new relationship with Latin America encouraged more respect and equality, rather than enforcing brute force as a way to achieve power and control. I think that even though this shift in policy was good for both countries, it still had its flaws in terms of power control and effectiveness. The policy implied principles of non-intervention/interference, yet the US still ended up breaking these rules during WW2 when they began to focus on other political matters. Thus, proving that many changes still needed to be made if both the US and Latin America were going to uphold this policy. I do not believe that these kinds of political movements influenced Latin American culture extensively, but I do believe that the media took a big part in cultivating Latin American culture. We can also see how influential and prominent US culture is in Latin American countries by looking at the various media sources found, such as tv, music, and fashion
From my understanding, the Good Neighbor policy was initially a non-interventionist approach to diplomacy between the US and all Latin America nations. Before this system the US acted as a guard dog, policing the Western Hemisphere by their favorable behavior towards the US. Also known as the ?Big Stick? policy by Roosevelt. Coincidently the Good Neighbor policy brought change to Latin America, as the Great Depression was hitting the US. In the example of the termination of US Marines? Occupation of Nicaragua, where the United States once held a monopoly over the Nicaraguan Canal it became costly for the US to maintain its occupation as the great depression hit; leaving many nations without guidance. However, the positive effects in the policy change reflected on the overall sovereignty of many countries, such as Cuba. After the shift in diplomacy from the US, many Latin American Nations viewed the US in a negative light. However, such perception began to change with the efforts of the US. Culturally, the US influenced Latin American societies by creating a world of desire. As referenced to ?How to read Donald Duck,? Disney established an image of innocence and trust and ultimately being able to portray American characters superior to Latin American.
I think the “Good Neighbor” policy had better intentions than the “Big Stick” in that it was far less paternalistic and promoted the building of relations between countries. Instead of giving the feeling of punishment or retribution for not behaving as the US saw fit (Roosevelt was quoted saying “speak softly, carry a big stick”), the Good Neighbor policy brought aid (for example, vaccinations) and hoped to assist in the strengthening of economic ties and investments between involved countries. Of course, the only catch, and what makes it similar to the Big Stick, is that in order to receive the benefits of this relationship, the country had to be considered a “friend” of the US, and to be considered a friend, you had to comply with what the US deemed good behaviour. By doing this, the US continued to impart colonial or imperialistic control over an area that was not under their authority.
The Good Neighbor policy did however, help build a cultural bridge between Latin America and the US by promoting a positive vision of Latin America by exposing people to the countries in various ways such as the World Fair and the use of Latino actors in films. This helped to change some of the previous misconceptions of Latin Americans as well as encourage tourism and trade in some countries.
I think the “Good Neighbor” policy did not change much how the USA behaved towards Latin American countries. I feel that after approving the policy the USA was still extremely involved in Latin American affairs. The only thing that changed was the way the United States wanted to be seen by others. In order to be better seen by other countries the USA did things such as giving Cuba more sovereignty and creating the OCIAA which promoted culture. The biggest improvement from Roosevelts “Big Stick” was lessening the view of America being everyone’s ruler and able to intervene and do whatever they want is necessary. One of the biggest cultural influences that the “Good Neighbor” policy brought to the Latin America was Disney as it made it popular across Latin America.
I believe that the “Good Neighbour” policy was quite an improvement compared to Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy because of it’s non-interventionist approach, however it was still consistent with the rhetoric of US hegemony, superiority and control in Latin America. This was definitely evident in the way popular culture in Latin America became an avenue upon which the US manipulated to promote western culture, western ideals and hemispheric unity. So while the “Good Neighbour” policy refrained from intervening within the political sphere of Latin America, it did however continue to manipulate Latin American pop culture to promote it’s western ideals.
I think that the good neighbour policy was a definite improvement over the big stick policy. In my eyes, America has seen itself as a world police force for too long, and their interventionist policies, whether out of honest intent or otherwise, always seem to leave lasting scars. The good neighbour policy seems to at least begin to address this issue, although the cynic in me says that the policy was simply a more way of making Americas foreign influences more justifiable, and no less destructive. At the same time, the United States does hold massive power and can use that power for good, like we have seen in humanitarian crisis, and it is convenient to forget that relief efforts do count as interventions. Something else to consider is whether or not the good neighbour policy was actually effective. The US backed, CIA lead illegal overthrows of democratically elected governments in Latin America throughout much of the late 20th century seem to me to be behavior contradictory to the nature of the policy- surely such a high degree of political meddling, and the problems that follow are less the actions of good neighbours and more those of sworn enemies. The policy is perhaps a nice notion, but only that.
I do not see much difference between the “Good Neighbour” policy and Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy in terms of the goal and execution. Roosevelt’s Big Stick policy refers to negotiating peacefully but there is an unspoken threat (the US military) to essentially ensure the US has the upper hand, and it was an inherently interventionist policy. Even though the Good Neighbour policy considers itself to be a non interventionist approach, the involvement of the US in politics, economics, and culture was still apparent during this time. The Good Neighbour policy tried to repackage intervention as “neighbourly” partnerships and agreements that are mutually beneficial to both parties, however due to the great power dynamic imbalance between the two regions these agreements can not be “fair”. The US is aware of this imbalance and we can see it in the depictions of third world countries (like Latin American countries), with the example of Donald Duck being particularly evident. By depicting these countries as infantile and ignorant and the US as civilized and advanced, it clearly paints a picture of the imbalance present. I personally am against US intervention in foreign countries (especially ones that are clearly less developed and vulnerable to manipulation), as this intervention has only caused conflict and/ or dependency in the regions (i.e Latin America’s economic dependency on the US and conflict in the Middle East as a result of US intervention).
The Good Neighbour policy attempts to influence Latin America without aggressive and overt intervention but through good relations and alleged good intentions, this was done significantly through culture. The push to hire Latin American actors, produce movies that portrayed Latin American actors, and produce movies that portrayed Latin America positively showed how the US was aware the popular culture is a significant platform to influence the masses with. Walt Disney’s films were designed to build friendly relationships between the two regions so that the US could have access to the resources and commerce in Latin America. Thus, this political era greatly influenced the popular culture of the era as well, since it was essentially used to spread Good Neighbour propaganda and gain the support of both US and Latin American audiences.
I believe that the US “Good Neighbour” policy was it significant improvement on the Roosevelt “Big Stick” diplomacy. It was an improvement in that it allowed for a non-interventionist approach. The US release some of its power and control and I believe by removing troops inserting countries and negotiating national compensations for foreign-owned oil companies in Mexico overall the US had a greater aim to be more equal friends and previously with Roosevelt “Big Stick”. The impact of the US and Roosevelt “Good Neighbour” and even the “Big Stick” policy has a great impact on Latin American culture today. Roosevelt introduced many TV shows and movies that are popular in Latin American culture today. Through the “Good Neighbour” policy there was also an increase in film studies, and more Latin American actors were in American films. Visiting Latin America today, you can see the impact the US industries still have on Latin America today as they’re heavily involved and very common in Latin America. Similarly, much of Latin American culture and and practices coincides with the United States today in many areas.
In many ways the Good Neighbor policy enacted by FDR seemed to be a great improvement to Theodore’s Big Stick policy. But in actuality there was still an existing hegemonic sentiment. If anything, it was just less overt. Theodore’s policy made the US take the role as an international police force, or as an arbitrator of sorts. While the Good Neighbor policy took somewhat of a step back by recalling marine forces in Nicaragua and later Haiti, it still took the role of an international police force through its hegemonic cultural influences. Instead of using a “big stick” to control old colonies, it used popular media to socialize and condition populations into believing its power and influence was just. So although the Big Stick policy may have seemed more controlling, I would argue that the impact of brainwashing propaganda broadcast to entire generations of children, through a thin veil of popular media, was/is ultimately more controlling than any number of ground forces could have been.
I’m not convinced that there is an immense difference between Roosevelt Sr. and Jr.’s foreign policies, especially when it comes to Latin America. Certainly, the international climate ––especially the US’ dominance as a world power–– was different in after WWI, and especially prominent leading up to and ‘proven’ in WWII. Further, the post-WWII international climate meant that interventions by the US in other countries had to be more covert. The ‘Good Neighbor Policy of the inter-war period can be seen as a turn toward economic engagement and the export of ‘cultural goods’ to Latin America ––this has a definite political taste.
Latin American markets could be at once suppliers of raw materials (or commodities) as well as consumer markets for US-manufactured goods. With the rise of ‘popular culture’ in the USA, these US-based producers saw potential as well in Mexican, then Latin American markets. Monroe and Roosevelt Sr.’s foreign policies did not have this cultural dimension to tap into, largely due to the lack of capitalist ‘reification’ or commodification for mass consumption during their eras. Fordism and the consequences of the ‘middle-class’ phenomenon especially in the 1920s (mass consumption of goods –from telephones, dishwashers to cars and TVs) was the precursor to the mass consumption of radio- then TV-shows or popular culture.
The “Big stick diplomacy” was nothing compared to “The good neighbour policy”, although I feel that the “big stick diplomacy” helped to shape “The good neighbour policy”. All that the “Big stick Diplomacy” did was tried to take control of the other countries. Whereas the “The good neighbor policy” was more hands-off, once they removed their armies form the countries. They used the popular Latin American culture to influence Latin America. This was done heavily through Disney and the other popular film companies at the time. The reason they did that was to get more American companies in Latin America. Now today there are many companies in Latin America, but in return, I feel that the US media had been heavily impacted by Latin America culture.
FDR’s ‘Good Neighbor’ policy was introduced to reverse the policies that were implemented through Americas ‘Big Stick’ ideology. This new system would lift the U.S.’s reputation in the eyes of many Latin American countries. The policy used popular culture as a way to promote a positive view of America in Latin America and to promote a vision of hemispheric unity. This was done through programs such as OCIAA (Office of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs), along with help from Walt Disney, who together were able to produce enjoyable films while simultaneously increasing America’s reputation. Although the ‘Good Neighbor’ policy was a step in the right direction, the U.S. still had significant control over Latin America. The United States wanted to be seen differently in the eyes of other countries; unfortunately, their sphere of influence remained the same, or possibly increased.
The Good Neighbor policy was a way for the US to peacefully profit off of Latin American countries. This can be seen as an improvement over the Big Stick policy due to the removal of military presence and increased efforts in mending US and Latin American relations. The Good Neighbor policy promoted national sovereignty, but it also encouraged a stronger presence of US pop culture.The US entertainment industries took advantage of this deal by making content that would be more appealing to their new Latin audience, but could also be sold to a US audience. The result of this was sensationalized representations of Latin America in US pop culture. Latin America was treated as a commodity to be sold to the United States.
I think the good neighbor policy was quite a lot different from the Roosebelt’s one. I think the Big stick kind of interrupted development of Latin America by US solving international problems in their favor. Then, the ‘Good Neighbor’ policy kind of gave Latin America to make their own decisions and be responsible for their works. This can be seen as an improvement since US are not trying to control Latin America by power. However, they were same in the point of view that US should exist between Latin and Europe. Since these policies do not let Latin Americas alone, they have influenced their life itself. People could easily get along with American cultures, so that made new trend in Latin American culture.
I believe FDR?s Good Neighbour policy did very little to help Latin America. It did take American Troops out of certain Latin American countries, and it did promise to take a less interventionist approach to Latin American Countries. However, the Americans did not really change their policy of intervention, rather just how it looked. The ?Big Stick? had troops settled within Latin American countries, while the ?Good Neighbour? controlled Latin American countries through their Economy, and commerce. FDR wanted to improve Latin American and American relations, so removing troops was a necessary step. However, the Americans were still able to exploit the Latin American countries for economic gain. It did allow some of ?American? culture to reach Latin American audiences, such as Disney and American music. As these cultural things were received positively Latin American peoples became more invested in them, upping the American economy, and creating blend of American and Latin cultures.
I believe that the “Good Neighbor” policy was beneficial both for the US as well as LA. I think this is true because it brought good relations between the two nations. Through the lens of Disney during that time, the video we watched in class showed LA in a good light by helping bridge together a barrier that was once there. Yet I feel like also that the US had a little too much direction of the views they wanted to portray of Latin America. Overall I feel it was a good attempt to make better connections by being the so-called “good neighbor”. I feel like this policy also allowed the US to become an even bigger powerhouse with all the heavily directed influences that they had on the “little guy”.
In my opinion I believe The Good Neighbour policy was an improvement in the foreign policy of the United States that had successful long term effects on both sides. Its previous long history of intervention and concealed indirect power over many Latin American countries resulted in relatively little widespread gain for the US and evidently traumatic impacts to large populations across latin American communities. Although it wasn’t perfect, and the United States violated the policy on many occasion, it was none the less a step in the right direction. As the US went public with their intentions it set a standard in the international world order of non-interference in the affairs of foreign nations. This was not only important to the Latin countries, but to other countries who the US might of seen potential in their intervention. The publicity of this adopted policy also promoted surges of nationality across the region, furthering the well-being of most Latin American countries as a democratic and sovereign state.
I believe that the “Good Neighbor” policy represented the US illegitimate attempt to enforce its hegemonic power over politically and economically weaker societies. The American policy justified its presence by presenting US as the best political and natural ally. It was beneficial for the US political agenda that their relations with Latin American countries created a dependence on its political presence. This kind of relation would enforce the facade of an organic necessity for guidance. It is evident that the US profit and international gain overpassed the one of Latin American countries however Latin American societies specially women improve their status within their context. Academia also was promoted by globalization which increase socioeconomic mobility enhancing cultural development.
The US good neighbour policy was an improvement from Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” policy as it was a step towards less US intervention in Latin America. The good neighbour policy promoted a good relationship with Latin America as it encouraged respect and equality, rather than force to gain power and control. It was a step for the US to allow Latin America to develop their own identity. However, US intervention was still felt particularly in the economic sector, such as the presents of the United Fruit Company. The US influenced Latin America culturally through media such as Disney which integrated US culture and values into Latin American society.
I think FDR’s “good neighbour” policy is simply a reformulation of the Big Stick policy implemented by his predecessor at the turn of the 20th century: instead of making control and exploitation of Latin American countries explicit like Teddy, FDR tries to create an illusion of departure and newly given freedom by removing American soldiers from certain areas such as Haiti. However, the fact that many American Interests are still present in Latin America, such as the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, means that the United States still needs to ensure cooperation of those in positions of control. In addition to this, the automobile industry was only really starting to grow in the US around the late 1910’s and exploded in the 1920’s. This meant that rubber became an extremely important resource for American car makers, and since the majority of rubber is exported from Latin America, it would be advantageous for the US to be on good terms with the countries producing it. However, although the US claims to implement a fair, neighbourly policy, these economic interests are clearly more important than the well being of the countries they are situated in. Indeed, certain leaders’ were toppled by US backed coups in an effort to make exploitation of resources easier and more profitable, an example of this being the Guatemalan coup of 1954, backed by the US in an effort to maintain the United Fruit Company in place.
In my opinion, the Good Neighbor policy of the USA was not intrinsically very different from its predecessor The Big Stick policy. Sure, politically it was painted to seem as though it was quite different, and specifically, less interventionist, but I don’t think that that was the truth of the matter.
During the Good Neighbor policy, US troops were brought back from Latin American countries. This created the appearance (on a global political stage) of freedom and sovereignty being established and re-established within these Latino nations. However, this was not the case on more than a superficial level. Because large American companies, like those interested in fruit and rubber (for car companies) remained in Latin America, US domination was still largely asserted through those countries.
Moreover, globalization was promoted and Latinos were given large doses of distinctly American things, like Disney, though these were received, for the most part, positively. The fact, though, was that American exploitation was still prevalent in these Latin countries. Though this was largely in economic ways, it was also visible in cultural ways. Cross pollination of cultures was certainly present and evident. But, of course, most important was money and using the Latin countries by making them politically dependent and wanting of some form of American presence.
The “Good Neighbor” policy seems to be a slight improvement over Roosevelt’s “Big Stick” one, but it continues America’s patronizing and paternalistic attitude towards Latin America which is never really a good thing to have in foreign affairs. This superiority complex could possibly be connected to the idea of “White Man’s Burden” that runs rampant in predominantly white countries and communities. This is idea that clearly the way things are going in LAtin America is the absolute wrong way to do things and that they need somebody to teach them the more civilized way of life. I do think it is a good thing that the “Good Neighbor” policy moved away from an interventionist way of doing things, even if the exploitation and cross pollination continued to occur, most likely because there was money to be made/maintained from it. Control is still important in Latin America because of fruit, rubber etc so the policy that was what Big Business wanted but was socially out of style had to be reformatted for PR reasons.
The United States, on account of its size and military, is likely to never step down from its patronizing attitude towards other nations in the Americas and beyond; since we’re the Superpower with the most to lose, I find it unlikely that our government will ever see error in its habit of acting as an international police force on behalf of MNC interests. “Good Neighbour” is a rather insulting sham of a policy, I would say, due to the ease with which our leaders overturned it during the Cold War for the sake of controlling key resource-founts; presently, I worry that Latin America’s markets rely so heavily on exports to North America that our hegemony over these continents may solidify into permanence.
Theodore Roosevelt was arguably imperialist in his decisions to facilitate a “Good Neighbor” policy in Latin America. From this, perhaps the installation of the Panama Canal should be regarded as indeed imperialist and an example of ‘dollar diplomacy’, as well as an attempt of pan-Americanism because of the act of construction in another country through capitalist means, as Lenin described it, in order to pursue financial interests, when Colombia, which had still been part of Panama, never requested such an action by the US. This further proves that during the time of Roosevelt’s presidency, the US might have developed an ‘informal empire’, consisting of dollar based control of ‘Uncle Sam’s backyard’ and a powerful reach into the oceans.
While the Good Neighbor Policy was meant to mark North America’s stepping back from interventionism, their new policy showed one side of the coin but their attitude did not actually flip. At heart, North America still was operating on the Big Stick Policy yet they were getting the public image of a country progressing to be a better international body. While this was a huge step forward in working towards more independence for Latin America, the repercussions of WWII led to the United States completely backing out of this policy and going back to their historic action of interventionism. Even throughout the period of the Good Neighbor Policy, the United States had heavy influence on Latin America and its culture through pop culture and media such as Disney as well as through different economic investments and companies. This led to the US’s culture being adapted and further integrated with different Latin American countries.