Truth to Power

LAST 100, , , , , Leave a comment

The 70’s and 80’s in Latin America were plagued by military dictatorships, oppression, and human rights violations. Authoritarian regimes often abused power to repress political dissidents and the opposition. To mask brutality, human rights issues, and total power, the governments, at the time, resorted to distraction tactics creating greater enemies. This became the case in Argentina with the Falklands, and Colombia with the War on Drugs. While governments were seeking to distract people from internal conflict, the opposition was still going strong, and disappearances in countries such as Argentina and Chile became everyday scenarios.

Politicians and absolute power resulted in brutal regimes where the opposition was tortured and prosecuted to the point that not even family members unaware of what was going on where involved. Children of ‘desaparecidos’ were taken and given to different families to raise. This led to hundreds of missing kids whose family was left thinking of the worst. Young people were also disappeared with no apparent reason. The first to raise their voices against the disappearance of innocents where the Madres de la Plaza de Mayo. This group, formed by mothers, had as their primary objective to bring back the ‘desaparecidos’ alive, or at least find what had happened to their loved ones. As time went by, the group became strong advocates for justice against those in the Argentinian government that had committed crimes against humanity during the Videla dictatorship. This group of mothers stood up against impunity and essentially battled the government in search of justice for their disappeared children.

The common trend throughout Latin America of governments fiercely opposing political dissidents and leftist socialist groups while enacting totalitarian regimes left the made the majority of the population apathetic towards the government resulting in the successful campaigns to topple regimes such Pinochet’s in Chile, Videla’s in Argentina, and Somoza’s in Nicaragua. The people eventually regained democratic power, and as the Cold War came to an end, the political influence that the United States held within Latin America was no longer necessary to wage proxy war against the USSR. Although many human rights violations, and government sponsored atrocities have gone unpunished, it can be said that a strong nation can beat an oppressive government and come to peace with violence as many of Latin America’s countries have done in the past 30 years or so.

Ideology and Violence in the 80’s

LAST 100, , , View all 2 comments

Violence in Latin American countries spread as ideological influence emanated out of the Soviet Union and the United States. Political violence throughout Latin America became the grounds for a proxy war between cold war superpowers with support for right capitalist governments coming from the USA, and funds for left-leaning guerrilla warfare coming from the USSR. The late 70’s and 80’s saw the prevalence of marxist guerrilla groups throughout Latin American countries such as the FSLN in Nicaragua, the FARC in Colombia, the Sendero Luminous in Peru, the FMLN in El Salvador, etc.

At the same time, Latin American countries were plagued, almost exclusively, by right leaning repressive governments politically aligned with the United States. Workers and peasants rights were usually ignored and redirecting attention to clientelist policy aimed at satisfying foreign interests, in exchange enriching dictators such as Somoza in Nicaragua and Pinochet in Chile.

Political policy shifted into one that focused on the targeting and elimination of the opposition and leftist groups. These groups were often made up of students, workers, and educated members of the lower middle classes. The targeting of these groups meant that the government, in a way, was waging war against education, youth, and the whole social culture that came to dominate the 70’s and 80’s. This targeting led to massive disappearances, murder, and imprisonment of students and young politically active people that disagreed with the dictatorial ultra-capitalist regimes.

In addition, in countries such as Colombia, Peru, and Bolivia, early drug violence added to the political conflict thus escalating conflict and adding to the death count. Widespread violence during the 80’s was, although mainly politically motivated, also fueled by other rising social issues such as inequality, drug trade, and conflicts over land that were brought to light in the increasingly unstable socio-political climate of the time.

Research Project: Annotated Bibliography

LAST 100, Leave a comment

Davidson, Miles H. “Occupation, Gold, and Religion.” Columbus Then and Now: A Life Reexamined. Norman: U of Oklahoma, 1997. 262-83. Print.

From the time of landing (1492) Christopher Columbus never really knew that he discovered a new continent. To the extent of his understanding, he had arrived on an island in the West Indies close to what is now Japan (Cipango in Columbus’ texts). Columbus created his descriptions of the new world, not from a new-discovery point of view, but from imagery borrowed from the “The Travels of Marco Polo”. Columbus’ descriptions of the new world resemble the depictions of the far east, often roaming into the realm of fantasy. Nonetheless, after the first voyage, Columbus’ journals stop referencing the Great Khan (Emperor of China), which might be an indication of the realization that he was indeed far from mainland china, or Asia per se. The chapter in general covers and reexamines the events after the voyages and what can be taken away to broaden the understanding about the imagining that Columbus’ brought to the new world with him. The expectations and outcomes of these initial expeditions are also examined, pointing out the role the Spanish crown had in the financing and what they sought from the whole enterprise. The examination of how these expectations change with every subsequent piece of information brought back give an insight to the initial discovery and treatment of the New World.

Bodmer, Beatriz Pastor. “Cristóbal Colón Y La Representación Del Botín Americano.” El Segundo Descubrimiento: La Conquista De América Narrada Por Sus Coetáneos (1492-1589). Barcelona: Edhasa, 2008. 25-100. Print.

Beatriz Pastor examines Columbus’ imagining of the new world and his role in the creation of a cultural imagining of the continent. Pastor examines Columbus’ descriptions in his journals and compares the narrative to that of earlier scholars and explorers such as Marco Polo, John Mandeville, and Oderico de Pordenone. Pastor suggests that Columbus never knew where he actually was. Calling the natives ‘indios’ (from india), searching for fantastic treasures from the middle east, and basing his journey on wrong calculations, imply that Columbus was indeed convinced that he was in the west indies near Cipango (Japan). Columbus had the idea (taken from Marco Polo’s Travels) that the Great Khan, emperor of Cathay, (China) and oriental people didn’t want to necessarily accept Christianity as a superior religion, thus making religious conquest and evangelization one of the objectives of this voyage. Upon arriving to the West Indies, Columbus is surprised by the fact that indigenous peoples seem non-religious and easy to convert. He saw himself as a bringer of Christianity to the middle east, land of magic and barbarians. This ties in spirit to the crusader mentality in which war was based on religion and evangelization. In general, Pastor reexamines Columbus’ imagining of the new world, his role in the creation of a continental imagery, and where he came from and his ideas prior to arriving to the new world.

Populism and the People

LAST 100, , View all 3 comments

Populism has been one of the defining characteristics of politics in Latin America. Since it’s inception with the Caudillos in the 19th century, populism started fading, only to resurface in the politically complicated 1930’s. Populism consisted of empowering the people to participate in politics by utilizing anti-corporate/anti-elite discourse and promising reform to benefit the majority of the population.

The widespread adoption of the radio and therefore incorporation of many radio stations throughout Latin America, led to widespread access of information to people that could not get information otherwise. This proved to be an essential tool for populists to reach the widely uneducated masses that had no access to newspapers and political documents. Radio became the main channel on which ideas and calls to action became disseminated to the majority of the population that directed their support towards populist candidates.

Through ideas of reform, expropriation, and empowerment, populist leaders molded their discourse to be simple, concise, and to the point. Through their discourse and ideas that encapsulated the thinking and understanding of a vast majority of workers, peasants, and members of the rising middle class, populism became an extremely efficient political tool for leaders of the late 20’s, the 30’s, 40’s, and could be argued, is still efficient today.

Leaders such as Juan Domingo Perón and Lazaro Cardenas, both representatives of the popular classes, are examples of populist leaders and how they usually get into power. They both supported dignity in labour, elimination of poverty, and nationalization of private, profitable enterprises. The emphasis of nation building under a highly structured government became the staple characteristic of these types of governments. Ideas of unification of the large working class and the emerging elite  became the main selling point of populist regimes, where the worker was seen as one of the most important parts of nation-building.

Overall, this phenomena brought extensive change to the political status quo of Latin American countries. By directing the aim of policy towards the lower classes, workers, and the emerging bourgeoisie, populism became a highly effective way to obtain power through majority vote. Whether it was for good or bad is relative to each persons place in society, but overall it can be said that this was a big change nevertheless.

Commerce, Coercion, and America’s Empire

LAST 100, , , , View all 3 comments

I was aware of the extent of American influence over Latin American countries (especially in Central America and northern South America) but never really thought about the collaboration that existed to develop vaccines and treatment of tropical diseases. I found American and Latin American scientific collaboration really interesting particularly because the vaccines they developed were mostly used by people affected by this disease. Yes, the US had other reasons behind the development of medicine that treated tropical diseases but the people that got the most out of this medical campaign were Latin American citizens living in areas plagued by diseases such as Yellow Fever.

I also found that the extent of the scope that the United Fruit Company (UFCO) had over Central and northern South American countries was several magnitudes above what I had expected. The UFCO managed its own ports, towns, and railways. The company essentially acted as an independent governmental entity of its own, and having established deals with many of the governments at the time, the United Fruit Co. established itself in a position where it held legal immunity. While they advertised their bananas as great products, the story behind each fruit included political treachery, abuse of workers rights, and acts of imperialism.

Overall, the extent of US intervention in Latin American countries pre-1950’s can be seen as one of mostly economic advantage. The United States seemed to only intervene in Latin America if they saw anything that seemed to bring economic benefit to either country or individual investors. The United States sought to establish an extractive relationship with the Americas much like the one the Spaniards held in the colonial period. Although intervention often brought development and infrastructure investment, most of the time, once the Americans left, it became expensive to maintain and brought more trouble than good.

 

Crisis in a Gilded Age?

LAST 100, , , , View all 2 comments

While it is true that early 20th century Mexico fell into economic, social, and political crises after the fall of Porfirio Diaz in 1911 I believe it is unfair to portray all of Latin America as going into crisis when only one country starts to revolt. While it is true that the Mexican Revolution started as the result of political treachery, the lack of attention to the rural population, and an uneven distribution of wealth and resources, the ever-increasing Americo-capitalist influence that plagued late 19th and early 20th century Latin America didn’t always end in crisis. The factors that contributed to the Mexican Revolution were unique in their own way thus creating the perfect breeding ground for revolutionary thought and new political ideas to benefit the majority of the population forgotten by Diaz’s dictatorship.

What I agree is a common post-1900-boom Latin American trend, was the increasing anti-imperialist feeling accompanied with idealistic sentiment of a unified Latin America. Authors such as José Vasconcelos with works such as La raza cosmica, present new concepts representing ideals of the future and how becoming racially-unified, boundaries will cease to exist in order to lead Latin America into a new golden future. Vasconcelos rejects Darwinian natural selection arguing that it is not applicable to the new human race, which is only valid for inferior species, not man. Unification through the disregard of race became one of the prime ideas that encompassed what it meant to be Latin American. Criticism of the European and North American practices of applying zoology to sociology became prevalent. Latin America became united by one common principle. Growth and progress through racial unity. At least that was what José Vasconcelos and people like him thought.

In general, regarding Dawson’s views on early 20th century Latin America, I find often find myself thinking: the history and development of Latin America can’t be summarized by taking only one country into account. I often found myself wondering what other points of view there are on the historical development of Latin America. Maybe one less inclined to make generalizations based on one set of unique circumstances.

Modernity and the Export Boom

LAST 100, , , , Leave a comment

Modernity came to Latin America tied to two basic principles: Order, and Progress. With order came progress, and with progress came modernity. Modernity was closely tied to capitalism, growth of the gross domestic product (GDP), increased foreign investment, and paying off national debt. Modernization meant having street-lamps, railways, automobiles, and flight, among other similar things. People embraced modernity as an idea from developed countries that would bring Latin America forwards into a new era of sustained economic growth and intellectual blossom. In other words, the more Latin America became like Europe and the US, the more modern it became. Immigration policy attracted foreigners and with them foreign investment. Foreign investment became the driving force behind the production, transport, and exploitation of Latin American staples and commodities. Staggering exports were fueled by foreign investment finally making them competitive in international markets.

In Mexico modernity came with the Porfiriato. Porfirio Diaz took power by force in 1877 and declared himself president. Diaz, then started a campaign to bring order to Mexico. Diaz thought that with order, progress would come thus lifting Mexico into modernity. Diaz, widely influenced by French positivism, enacted policies that brought foreign debt down and increased foreign investment. While he was in power Mexico expanded railways, got major infrastructure developed, became competitive in international markets, and held the strongest currency in its history. Urban centers became centers of progress, having trade schools, universities, and colleges. Even indigenous peoples got to participate, many times, assimilating into modern urban centers such as Mexico City. Diaz got the approval of US investors, politicians, and journalists, making his campaign for modernity widely supported by international players. All in all, through order and progress, Diaz ignited an era of modernism in Mexico which couldn’t’ve been done in any other way at the time given the current economic and socio-political climate of Mexico.

Although I don’t condone, or support by any means the way Diaz took upon his political goals, I agree with the fact that he brought order to a somewhat indecisive Mexico that had been struggling to compete in international markets or attract foreign investment. While large claims of corruption plague the Diaz mandate, all in all, the campaign to make Mexico a capitalist economy were far from unsuccessful. The porfiriato thus becomes an example of modernity through order and progress.

Racism, Citizenship, and Rights in Latin America

LAST 100, , , View all 2 comments

The development or lack thereof of racism, in Latin America follows a very different path to the one we learnt about in North America and the rest of the world. The highly mixed society, and complex slave economy placed slaves into a category of their own, leaving the rest of society “void” of racial stratification. While it can be argued that racial stratification is prevalent in Latin America, historically, it does not come from purposely segregating Afro Latinos. Equal rights regardless of race, make slavery in Latin America a unique phenomenon. Slave owners were not only limited to people of european background, but to anyone partaking in economic activity that used slavery as a means of production. This meant that, in general, there were slave owners of African descent, Indigenous descent, and mixed race.

Policy worked hard against racial discrimination, banning racially segregating parties such as the PIC (Partido Independente de Color) in Cuba. Countries with slave economies thrived production-wise, argument that trumped the fight for slave freedom and gave way for more political discourse disfavoring the slave population. Examples of such governmental policies could be observed in 19th century Cuba, and Brazil. While, in principle, rights were given to everyone regardless of race and social standing, the subsistence of inequality based on circumstances such as native origin, mixed race, and slave descent, led to socioeconomic differences that were inherently tied to race. On the other hand, women’s civil rights were also ignored. This could be traced back to implementation of european ideology, modeling policy based on the Napoleonic Code, and the 19th century european Civil Rights, where women were not really included.

The development of Racism, Citizenship, and Rights in Latin America, could be seen as flawed, but taking into account, that most ideology was merely borrowed, Latin America did what it could, and adapted to what it needed at the time. It wasn’t necessarily the best Latin America could do, but it was an attempt at a better society. I guess we should take into account the colonial era Latin America comes from when talking about progress.

 

 

Caudillismo and an Independent Latin America

LAST 100, , , Leave a comment

Caudillismo in Latin America developed when political consensus post independence disappeared. Politics was governed by the elite and policy was not appropriate in newly independent countries. Seeing this vacuum in political power, authority, and direction; caudillos were the next logical step in the political development in many of these countries. Argentina got Juan Manuel de Rosas; Mexico, Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna; Colombia, Tomas Cipriano de Mosquera; etc.

Caudillos came to power in unorthodox ways. Some gained support from the masses by being charismatic and using strong discourse aimed at the general population, others gained support from the military and then staged coups, and some others had money, influence, and ideas that people really liked. Caudillos generally promised to solve social issues, gave minorities rights, and enjoyed power for as long as they held the peoples support.

 

 

In Argentina, Juan Manuel de Rosas, born into a wealthy family, became supreme leader of the federalist party after escalating military ranks throughout his life. Rosas became the governor of Buenos Aires, and after a campaign of military violence and state backed terrorism consolidated his dictatorship. Rosas signed the Federal Pact (military and political treaty signed by Argentine provinces to maintain sovereignty over national territory, and confront the Unitarian League; political group seeking a centralized Argentine government as opposed to a federal one) and established himself as a dictator by popular demand.

Rosas’ brutality and totalitarian nature was captured by Esteban Echeverría in his short story  El Matadero (The Slaughterhouse). Unitarian by affiliation, Echeverría used this story as a political critique and exposé of Rosas’ brutality, a commentary on the social thirst for a leader like Juan Manuel de Rosas, and a model of the Porteño reality during Rosas’ time. The slaughterhouse acts as a microcosm of Buenos Aires with representations of Rosas, Unitarios, the Mazorcas, Federalists, and the rest of the general populace. The story serves as an outsiders look into the political and social most of Latin America lived during the time of Caudillos.

Caudillos, while not generally regarded as a nice time in Latin America, were necessary steps for the development of more stable governments. Lots of things were learnt in the Caudillismo era that made Latin American politics mature into something more stable and fair.

Bolivar’s ‘Jamaica Letter’ and Independent Latin America

LAST 100, , , , Leave a comment

The Jamaica Letter or “Carta de Jamaica”, written by Simon Bolivar on September 1815 and addressed to English merchant Henry Cullen served to justify Latin American Independence and ask for English help supporting the cause.

After having lost a number of military and political disputes with the government of Cartagena, Bolivar flees Colombia for Jamaica hoping to receive English backed support in his revolutionary endeavor. Seeing himself in need of financing, Bolivar seeks backers; one of them being Henry Cullen.

Bolivar talks about a unified independent America, by the people, for the people. He talks about a complete rupture with Spanish colonialism, ideas, and institutions, proposing the redistribution of power to the ‘criollos’. Bolivar proposes taking the land from the Spanish and giving it to those who participate in, and join the revolutionary cause.

The letter is filled with progressive thought and liberal ideas.

Going deeper into what this letter was meant for, we have to take into account who it was addressed to. Henry Cullen.

Henry Cullen was an English merchant in colonial Jamaica. He was well connected, had money, and knew people in with influence. Simon Bolivar thought that by writing to Cullen, he could tap into the British bank accounts to fuel his revolution and find allies to create his unified american dream. The way Bolivar writes to Cullen, hints at further motives in his writing of the letter. After all, Bolivar knew that Great Britain was the most powerful liberal nation at the time.

The letter is filled with rhetorical tools to capture the interest and gain the readers admiration. These are directly aimed at gaining english support for his cause, which, at the time is not given. Bolivar fled Jamaica after a failed assassination attempt and ended up in Haiti where he obtained his much needed financial support. He then returned to continental america where he consolidated the campaign for an independent Nueva Granada with the victory of the Battle of Boyacá in 1819.

If anyone is still wondering what happened to the British in this story, they offered their support later but were turned down after Bolivar was funded by Haitian money.