The United States has been and is commonly called an empire, and in this week’s lecture it is referred to as an “informal” one. Out of curiosity I decided to search the definition of empire and came across this google generated answer:
Interestingly I seem to connect the idea of America being an empire to the second definition, linking it to commercial relationships. Secondly, I noted the thought of the United States as having a large commercial organization impacting other countries, not just necessarily affecting solely their own. Why is that? Well perhaps because of how they act to gain their particular interests that come from other countries.
For example, in this week’s lecture video, Professor Jon asks us to write down our answers to numerous questions of the movie where Carmen Miranda, a brazilan singer stars. There were a couple things that I noticed, the first one being how her character is intrinsically merged with merchandise. She’s an image of Latin America, shown to be excotic, lively and colourful in comparison to “grey” North America, which can be appealing on an aesthetic level.
Also, she seems to be virtually inseparable from the array of exotic and colourful fruits and vegetables, as they make up her appearance. The produce can be connected to farmers and farming, almost implying that Latin America isn’t capable of contributing anything else other than exoticism. Instead of such things like technology, medicine etc; very basic. Although, to this day Latin America has contributed greatly in the richness of culture.
Personally, I think this provides a window to how the United States viewed Latin America and their relationship, as one where they profit. And if they viewed Latin America as such, there wouldn’t be much stopping them from making sure they gain the most, even if it means overstepping another nations sovereignty(?).
One last point I noticed was what was being exchanged? In the movie, Carmen gives the man coffee, but what does she receive? The chance to live in America with an admired lifestyle? Suggesting that just the opportunity to share the United States is great enough. However, as mentioned in the lecture, in reality she pocketed a big cheque.
Discussion: Most countries in Latin America can be defined with corrupt governments and poverty ridden. Is it fair to blame these struggles on the United States or appreciate the “positives” as a result from their interaction?
Emilia
November 3, 2020 — 1:04 pm
Hey!
I don’t think the US alone can be held responsible for all the poverty and corruption in Latin America. I think a large part of those issues began with colonialism and the Europeans, and got deeper with capitalism. I guess Latin America was disorganized enough to be easily controlled by the US. However, I don’t think this by no means justifies the involvement of US and I’m not saying what they did was right. I think Latin America was vulnerable enough to fall victim under the US attempts to gain power.
Jasmine Richards
November 3, 2020 — 5:03 pm
Hi!
I thought your point about Miranda not receiving anything in exchange for the coffee in the film is really interesting.
For the discussion question, I think the US intervention is not all to blame for the corrupt government and poverty but did play a big part in it. The exploitation of materials, as well as labor and supporting distorted governments, definitely resulted in slowing down the economic and political independence of the region.
mirella reichenbach livoti
November 4, 2020 — 1:10 pm
Hi Nitya,
I agree with Emilia’s comment that U.S. imperialism alone cannot be held responsible for the corruption and poverty in Latin America, and that to understand these issues we need to understand the legacy of colonialism and slavery in producing social inequalities. One question that I have though is what do you consider a corruption government? Is it just stealing money? In terms of the role that the U.S. has in the political corruption in Latin America, I completely disagree with Jasmine. What about Chile’s coup which was backed up by the U.S? Or the recent coup in Bolivia? Especially now with the elections, there is the fear that Trump will not passively resign from his position and that this may lead to violence. To me this feels hypocritical given that the U.S. has done this to several countries in Latin America, but when it threatens their democracy it is different. I’m not saying that I want violence to ensue in the U.S. and I know that Professor Jon mentioned in the video lecture that there were groups in the U.S. that opposed its interventionism in Latin America.
madeleine k.
November 4, 2020 — 6:24 pm
Hi Mirella! I thought your points were very interesting! I think a corrupt government could be defined as a group that doesn’t respect/implement democratic ideals, misuses power, illegally benefits from money, resources, networks, and/or anything for their own personal gain, etc. I also agree with Emilia’s points on how the US can be held responsible but did not do all the damage. Do you think that reparations should be paid to Latin America for all the damage of colonialism, slavery, and countries like the USA that have monopolized Latin America?
samantha morillo
November 4, 2020 — 7:34 pm
Hey,
We cannot simply blame one of the powers in this situation. Both did their fair share to the other and they both have profited in some way, some more than others. I think we can all agree the United States controlled more than they should have. Their actions did have negative affects on Latin America, but it was a two way partnership at one point. Blaming it all on the states would be ignorant of us to do, they were not the only reason that Latin America is not as developed or that it has a corrupt government. There are many factors that come into play when discussing that, americas actions toward Latin America was only a pertange of that.
cynthia lightbody
November 10, 2020 — 7:26 am
Hi Samantha,
I agree that we can’t put all the blame on a single power. You’re right when you say that “both have profited in some way, some more than others”, and I think you’re also right when you say, “I think we can all agree the United States controlled more than they should have.” But this doesn’t mean that the United States is to fully blame; they did not do all the damage. I asked some of my Mexican friends the discussion question and they said that they don’t think the US is at fault whatsoever. I also asked their parents, who have been living in Guadalajara, Mexico since the early 60s, and they said that they don’t blame the US at all for the corruption and poverty in Mexico.